Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement
Fanny Hensel
Fanny Hensel, 1842, by Moritz Daniel Oppenheim
Born
Fanny Mendelssohn

(1805-11-14)14 November 1805
Hamburg
Died14 May 1847(1847-05-14) (aged 41)
Berlin
Occupations
  • Composer
  • Pianist
SpouseWilhelm Hensel
ChildrenSebastian Hensel
FamilyMendelssohn family

The following thoughts were initiated by Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) on 25 June 2013 in response to discussions on the topic.

I dream of the day that the infobox is a simple tool of accessibility.

I think of it as the identity card of an article. It contains some data about the article subject that can be measured and compared, such as dates and places. It does not "represent" the subject, as an identity card does not reflect its holder's thoughts and feelings. The data in the box are useful for quick reference, and for other databases such as Wikidata. Data appear in granular form, dates for example in a format that has year/month/day individually accessible and thus ready to be compared and to be represented in different formats and languages. I believe that no article is "harmed"/"damaged" by an infobox that lets the reader see at a glance at least when and where to locate a subject. The infobox can also be compared to a title page of a book.

Feel free to discuss on the talk page, general thoughts and individual infoboxes. Please stay calm and factual ;)

History edit

The history of the infobox on Wikipedia is long, so is the history of the "infobox war". Working mostly in Classical music, I didn't see many infoboxes.

I first watched an edit war on an infobox on Samuel Barber. On 11 April 2012 I supported those who found the infobox redundant. Another user replied: "Gerda is, of course, absolutely right that an infobox doesn't contain any info that isn't already present in the article, but it isn't meant to: its purpose is to summarize the info in an "at a glance" way." - I confess that I didn't understand it then. (Read the discussion, all arguments in a nutshell.)

I watched the argument on an infobox for Georg Solti on the day of being TFA, 25 July 2012. The article had an infobox until 14 November 2007. I read: "Infoboxes are part of the site's design. They are to serve readers who are looking for a précis, who are surfing. Seeking to exclude the infobox is akin to wanting some other part of the MediaWiki interface gone, such as the wiki-globe. It would be better to view the infobox as a sibling to the column of stuff to the left of the article. ... Those classes are about generating microformats; metadata. ... It's also simply about reader courtesy and site consistency." "Infoboxes are useful tools that should be encouraged in classical music articles. They sum up the main points of an article, allowing for readers of these articles (such as myself) access to some of the most commonly sought-after material. That they be in standard place in most articles would allow readers an easy go-to place for birth/death dates, places of occupation, and a general synoposis of the individual. I feel some in the classical music wikiproject get offended thinking that infoboxes encourage readers to skip over some admittedly great articles. But those who come here just to see a basic sketch of an individual aren't going to read the article from top to bottom. Those who do that will continue to do so whether or not there is an infobox present. Infoboxes, written correctly (omitting information that cannot be summarized, such as which "period" Beethoven belongs to), offer no drawbacks to an article and quite a few benefits." - I learned some new ideas.

I was present in the beginning of the argument on an infobox for the book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek on 18 September 2012, after it had been TFA, an article that I had watched since I had reviewed it for DYK. I first agreed with the author who didn't want an infobox. One editor said "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database", and the other "It's both", - and that converted me.

Since, I am ready to supply infoboxes, developed {{infobox Bach composition}} with Classical Music and helped developing {{infobox opera}}.

Service edit

Extracted from the above, an infobox can serve several functions.

Main points edit

The infobox can sum up the main points of an article in structured format "at a glance". It should contain only sourced facts from the article.

Reader courtesy edit

Making a quick overview available is a courtesy to any reader.

Site consistency edit

Infoboxes are present on many articles of Wikipedia, on all levels of quality. A stub that contains just an infobox can be informative, for example "my opera house", Daegu Opera House. Most featured articles come with an infobox.

Microformats edit

Presenting data in microformats, for example geographic coordinates and calendar events, makes them accessible as metadata to programs, ready for comparisons and calculations independent of a language, and ready to be translated easily to other languages.

Quality standard edit

Infoboxes are features, along with images and tables, that are wanted for some quality articles, such as "appropriate supporting materials" for class B for Military history. (Added 2 November 2014)

Analysis edit

Where are the infoboxes?

Also, for any infobox, select "what links here" and then "transclusions".

Related thoughts and comments edit

2013 edit

2016 edit

In a discussion, WhatamIdoing pointed out:

  • Blind users are unable to read, and yet we do count them as "readers" and editors. Some dyslexic readers value infoboxes precisely because it minimizes the need to read a gray blur of text. We also get feedback from people who struggle with English, who prefer infoboxes because they don't have read sentences (or paragraphs, or more, depending upon which specific fact is being sought). This isn't necessarily an argument for or against an infobox in this specific article, but I think it is important to remember that different people get information from Wikipedia in different ways. 1
  • I agree that all the important facts can't be squeezed into an infobox. But from the POV of a reader who is in search of an individual, simple fact, e.g., "Where was Holst born?", it is certainly true that "the only fact that is important to me at the moment" could easily be placed in an infobox. Right now, to find Holst's birthplace, you have to search through 400 words first. So imagine that you don't actually care why Holst is awesome. Imagine that you really only want to know if he is a potential subject for the homework that your history-of-music teacher ordered on "Dead Composers from England". And imagine that you can't read English easily. From that POV, an infobox would be very helpful in meeting your needs. Or perhaps you're looking for a list of his compositions, which appears halfway through the article, and again in the navbox, which is invisible on mobile devices (=about half of our readers). Having that at the top would be handy for that reader.
    More generally: are we at risk of imposing a single narrative on readers? Is there only one Correct Way™ to use an article? Are we starting to think that All True Readers want to know the whole story, as explained in 9,000 carefully chosen words, and to design articles not only to support this rare person, but also to ignore and exclude the others? Perhaps we should spend more time thinking about our average reader, rather than our ideal one. This particular article gets about 400 views on an average day. Based upon research with mobile platform, many of those 400 readers never progress past the lead, and very few – maybe just one or two each day – read the whole thing. 2 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opabinia regalis, 3 October 2016: "Even if an infobox would help orient readers, the editorial improvements also obviously benefit them; it's a rare case where a mediocre article with an infobox is better than a well-developed article without one. On the other hand, it would really help if people who make "editorial choices" not to use infoboxes would do some more thinking about how they are going to serve their less prose-oriented readers - people who are just skimming, who aren't sure this article is the one they're looking for, who don't read English well, who are reading on their phones, who are trying to reuse our content, etc. While I don't mean anyone in this thread, I've noticed that a lot of the rhetoric around infoboxes carries the tone that these readers are not worth making an effort to reach, and that's not a sustainable approach." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 edit

  • Voceditenore, 9 December 2017: "I personally use infobox opera on all the articles I write and expand (in conjunction with navigation footers), and consider it highly preferable to the old vertical navboxes. But that is neither here nor there. The world is not going to come to an end if some articles do not have them and vice versa." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jayron32, 12 December 2017: "The thing to keep in mind here is that regardless of whether or not the infobox belongs or not, once we've reached a decision to not include one in this article, it is not unexpected that there will be questions about that decision. Let's just concede that the the proper decision here is to exclude the infobox from the Cary Grant article. (I'm not saying it WAS the proper decision mind you, just that we'll treat it as a given for the sake of moving this discussion forward). Given that such a decision does not match reader expectations at Wikipedia, there are, every so often, going to be people who find the lack of an infobox surprising. Those people are also going to know NOTHING about the background of how the decision was arrived at. Here is my central point, so don't miss it (bold for emphasis): New, uninvolved readers and editors with no background in the prior discussions leading to the decision to exclude the infobox deserve to be treated with decency and respect and should be expected to receive a patient, clear, and proper response to explain the rationale for the decision. The people who wish to maintain the lack of an infobox can do so for all I care, but what should not happen is what I see on the talk page, which is those self-same people being curt, rude, and dismissive of people who want to understand why that is so. There are going to be people every few weeks who are going to raise the question. We cannot stop them from raising the question. While that doesn't mean we have to relitigate the issue every few weeks, it DOES mean that those people should be treated with decency and respect, and not dismissed rudely as though the decision which was reached should have been obvious to them." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 edit

  • Voceditenore, 12 October 2018: "And, no, there haven't been infobox squabbles in ages. I personally use them all the time now for biographies and operas. There are a few diehards left, but the general attitude from both perspectives seems to have settled on live and let live." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 edit

  • JonRichfield, 26 March 2019: "Keep or improve the template or its form or content in context Having checked the "Templates for discussion" log, I consider the objections to templates and denial of their value to users to be mistaken, much like the wars against links and technical terms in article titles. It is quite possible to use them constructively, and as is true for any useful tool, to misapply them uselessly or harmfully or pointlessly. The fact that certain classes of user, typically professionals or others advanced in the field, might consider them as useless, redundant, misleading, or aesthetically displeasing, is beside the point. Those are not the only users. Many readers (most, I think) are either ill-equipped to go beyond factoids, or uninterested; even a professional might well look up a date or a name for constructive purposes. If anyone has objections, the appropriate course is to improve the template, not gratify a point of personal distaste. " --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 edit

... A vote count shows an infobox has almost 2-1 support but closers are specifically warned not to simply count noses in that way. Looking at the strength of arguments shows that many fall into the category of "irrelevant arguments" those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. The majority of "oppose" arguments fall into simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. E.g., the original author opposed infoboxes, that they are only good for certain types of articles, that they have no added value, that infobox discussions are unwelcome, etc. These are clearly expressions of "personal opinion only" and not especially helpful. There were other arguments that there is no precedent established by the presence of infoboxes on other biographical articles for famous authors. This is true but there was a clear expression for an infobox here so arguments against its inclusion on this article should be particular to this article and a lack of precedents is not a barrier to inclusion per the relevant Arbcom decision.
There were clear usability and policy-based arguments in favor of an infobox: that the requirements of the relevant template could be met, that access to information was enhanced, and that key biographical information was difficult to find quickly without one. These constitute grounds for improving the encyclopedia to serve readers, which is the first pillar and the basis of WP:IAR. As the number of users accessing this site via mobile devices has climbed, information accessibility arguments especially are ones that a closer should take seriously. There will inevitably be a backlash against this discussion but the clear consensus of this particular discussion for this particular article, by both numbers and strength of arguments is to endorse an infobox.

2021 edit

The article should include an infobox. The infobox should be well curated and only include details highly relevant to understanding the biography of the subject. What counts as "relevant" should be determined through regular editing.
Supporters had a numerical majority, and oppose arguments were generally weak. Some editors oppose an infobox on the grounds that it is redundant with the lead, and unlike prose it may present information without important context. Others point out that the redundancy is a good thing as our readership is not only people with time to read multiple paragraphs. Those editors argue that including the infobox provides data in a standardized and structured manner, and duplicating information in a different format (like the lead does for the article body) allows us to serve the needs of multiple kinds of readers and therefore more readers than prose alone; those seeking greater context have the option to read the lead, and if they still want more context they may read the full article.
Editors in opposition argue that the support rational---infoboxes are helpful to readers---is without evidence and should be discounted. Leaving aside the arguments from intuition used by those opposing, editors who commented late in the discussion point out that the sheer number of editors in this discussion saying that they are useful shows that skepticism about their usefulness is unfounded (editors are also readers, after all). some editors try to discount opinions in favor of inclusion by pointing out that arguments about infobox usefulness don't address usefulness in this article specifically. Leaving aside the arguments about the harms of infoboxes not specific to this discussion, and also leaving aside that most editors making this point are citing an essay about discussions at articles for deletion (which this isn't), any cooperative reader will recognize the implication that editors who comment here saying "infoboxes are generally useful" probably think that statement applies to this situation too. This is not to say that arguments for exclusion are without merit, rather, many rationales were procedural objections or double-edged.
A strong argument from those wanting to exclude an infobox points out that infoboxes, particularly of liberal artists like Fleming, collect a lot of useless information and attract vandalism. While vandalism or collecting "cruft" are legitimate concerns, supporters point out that these concerns are not unique to infoboxes, let alone the infobox on this article, and participants generally weighed the benefit to the reader more highly than the editorial work needed to curate the infobox. This concern still points out what considerations need to be taken into account when curating the content of an infobox: only include information that is well sourced, factually accurate, and which does not place undue prominence on minor aspects of the subject. As a few editors point out, this article passed FA while containing an infobox, so compliance with our manual of style and content policies is clearly possible. The specifics though are left to the regular editors of this page who know more than I do about what important stuff Fleming did.

2022 edit

hopefully nothing to report --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

while the year was calm for most of the time, infoboxes became subject of RfCs not only for Laurence Olivier (22 October 2022), but also some others that are still open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also edit

History edit

The following brief memories are copied from User talk:Jmar67 on 19 December 2019:

Infoboxes

@Gerda Arendt: When you get a few minutes (?!), I would like a brief summary (here) of the infobox controversy you have been involved in. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just returned from the funeral (see my talk). My POV is on WP:QAI/Infobox. Perhaps start reading at the bottom, where admired people said good things. The last debate was on Pierre Boulez (in 2016, when he died, Archive 1). I didn't want any more of the kind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the last debate was Georg Katzer when he died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I noticed that and thought about you. Still don't understand the objection to infoboxes. I have seen them so often that an article without one looks incomplete. Jmar67 (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask them that question, and perhaps get an answer. I asked, got no answer, but was told that I'm wrong. - I thought about bringing flowers iunstead of the question, but if the question is not understand, how will flowers be? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about starting a little history of the infoboxs wars which began in 2005. As other religious wars, they are not so much about a faith (infobox yes or no) but about domain, power and alliances. The prime objection to an infobox seems to be that it dominates the upper right corner (for mobile the beginning of the article), and thus snares away the reader's attention from the "beautifully crafted" (not making that up, it's a 2013 quote) lead and article, and that reader may go away without ever looking at the beauty. Therefore opposers don't write infobox, but IB, meaning ídiotbox.

I can't tell you anything about 2005, because I joined in 2009. As you know already, if you followed my project link, my history with the infobox wars began in 2012.

2012

  • April 2012: Samuel Barber - Gerda Arendt meets the infobox wars. Infobox was added by Andy (Pigsonthewing), perhaps the most-hated player in the field, which she didn't know. It was reverted, he began a discussion. She opposed - and was converted in that discussion, by a beautiful line. The discussion is short, still on the talk, and was never resolved.

There are a few no-nos if you go to infobox discussions. Don't do it on the day an article is today's featured article (Jules Massenet today and three more days)! Don't ever mention the word ownership! Stay factual. Best advice: don't go at all ;) - Andy and I soon became friends. He (who once called an article without infobox "naked", - that was when he was forbidden by our highest court to add an infobox to an article he had created, but that's 2013 already) rarely touches an infobox discussion these days, nor do I. I just failed to look up who wrote the Katzer article, or would simply have left it as it was (so certainly no Main page appearance, with exactly one ref used inline twice). Sooo many other articles are missing. If you want to do something for the future, ask the question in the peer review of Orpheus in the Underworld. Better you than I ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • June 2012: WP:QAI was founded by a few users who were unhappy with the TFA system, then run by one user who never scheduled articles by one of the members, Wehwalt. Today, we have three who alternate scheduling, one of them Wehwalt, - goal accomplished. The first on the list, PumpkinSky, and I wrote Franz Kafka, FA 14 October that year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • October 2012: The second-most hated player in the infobox field (and my friend) was Br'er Rabbit. For a sample, perhaps see Talk:Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. At the end, he quoted: "One despairs, one really does." - After a fruitful year, in October he decided to have himself banned, very successfully so. I still miss him, and am not the only one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • December 2012: Andy and I collaborate creating {{infobox Bach composition}}. (transclusion count today 221) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2013

  • March: Andy and Voceditenore (and I a bit) begin and develop {{infobox opera}} (today 1030 transclusion), a discussion happens about the sense (?) to collapse an infobox, and a discussion on Robert Stoepel who is a composer among other activities leads to him having an infobox (inspite of the 2010 guideline by WP:Composers that composers are too complex people to simply say when and where they were born and died, - a guideline still linked in discussions in 2019 such as Georg Katzer, believe it or not). Gerda Arendt thinks the infobox is over. This line will be a mantra for years to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14 March: I experimented with infobox opera on Motezuma. It was reverted and called "disruptive", the first time I was called that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 March: The "wars" were not over, as I noticed when I suggested on the talk page to give Bach an infobox, as a birthday gift, and the resulting discussion (first thing: someone changed the thread header) made GFHandel leave forever, missed much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30 March: I add an infobox to the Sparrow Mass, resulting in a little edit war including article protection over Easter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 May: A short notice on project opera said that {{infobox opera}} is under development. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16 May: In preparation for the bicentenary of Richard Wagner, I following advice by Newyorkbrad, to place an infobox on an article talk page if it was not wanted in the article. (It wasn't wanted, as the peer review had shown, article by Smerus.) So. See what happened. - The kafkaesque thing is that nothing was supposed to happen, - the design was planned to sit quietly on the talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30 May: The Rite of Spring, a discussion which became a major topic in ARBINFOBOX, and which is still on the talk. Unfortunately, the lead image was deleted in the meantime. It was a colourful image of a stage set, looking like a painting of a landscape, - nothing which would make you think of dance and music without explanation. Btw, it was this discussion in which "beautifully crafted" was coined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 June Project opera announces infobox opera as ready to be used, and on 18 June (end of the same long discussion) announces that it has been inserted as an option in the project guidelines. It means that the traditional side navboxes of project opera (compare Rinaldo (opera)) can be replaced by a combination of bottom navbox and infobox (compare Carmen). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25 June I make the topic part of QAI, one opera example (after it was reverted) and the line that still sits on top of that page: "I dream of the day that the infobox is a simple tool of accessibility." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 26 June Remember the Sparrow Mass? After the edit warring mentioned above, it had an infobox. On 6 June, it was removed, on 25 June I brought it back. On 26 June, I was welcomed to the "infobox warrior club", citing three diffs, two from March, one from June. The discussion is still on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 July Back to opera: during the following weeks, some users prepared the way by adding the composer's navbox to opera articles, and others added infoboxes, for example Viva-Verdi and I to Rigoletto. The next step was a longish discussion, in the only archive of that opera. The same happened on other operas, but so similar that looking at one should do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARBINFOBOX

  • 12 July Ched, a QAI member seeing the several time sinks of discussions, requests an ARB case on the matter. He (and I) should have known better, by the ultimate guide to arbitration. His request came as a surprise. Here's the link to the request and all that followed in the case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 July The case was opened. It was the first for me ever, - I had no idea what arbcom was, nor how you have to behave, so made some mistakes you'd better avoid. I trusted that the arbs would easily see how much more user-friendly and elegant an opera article is with an infobox than with the side navbox. Only: they were not interested. It didn't take long until the case focused on Andy being hated by many, and the long history of that. Please see yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20 July First comment in the workshop - any questions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • August While there was much talk about editor behaviour in the case, I made a factual list of 59 infoboxes that got reverted. A mistake. Who cares about facts and detail in arbitration? Some delicious edit summaries with the reverts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 August The discussion of discussions, and illustrating "speaking terms" mentioned next: Talk:Siegfried (opera)#Infobox. If I had been arbitrator, I would have told all participants in the case: do it like this from now on ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 August In the workshop, a design for a simple infobox for Beethoven. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 August On my talk page, Nikkimaria explains the fine line between "not contentious" and "shouldn't be contentious". She reverted many infoboxes, but we have been respectful of each other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16 August Same place, a discussion started by Smerus, based on a misunderstanding, but resolved nicely. He was another one on the opposite end of the case, and we also have been on good terms. The third one was Kleinzach, whom you met if you looked at Bach, Wagner, the Sparrow Mass and Rigoletto. He stopped working for Project Opera, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pause Today is Sunday, so let's pause for a moment and look at the situation in evidence and workshop, and wait for the arbitrators to write their decision, Worm That Turned and David Fuchs. Today's featured article Rossini is by Smerus and Tim riley, and nobody praised me yet for not mentioning the topic in peer review and FAC ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before going to the decision, we should look at Peter Planyavsky, who was a composer but mostly an organist. What do you see, history and talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Or more precisly: which of the edits will be cited in the decision to ban a user? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 August Proposed decision is posted. (In case you are happy enough to not have seen such a thing, it follows a pattern from priciples to finding of fact to proposed remedy, and while arbs do much off-wiki, decision-making in cases is done in public. All arbs on a case support or oppose what the two who wrote the initial "decision" have proposed.) Look and see how the result is simple and supports what my dead friend wrote in his ultimate guide: "the Committee does not carefully examine the evidence and circumstances leading up to a case". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps now look at some reactions (on the talk of the same), the first coming the first day after publishing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case you missed it: I turned to Floquenbeam for help, User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 6#Hearish? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 August "We start today ...", I said it then, I say it now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22 August by now several voted, what do you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At that point, I could add again: "Gerda Arendt thinks the infobox is over." - do you see the same? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only, it wasn't. If you check the votes on the proposed decision, you'll see that the pile on banning Andy grew. It's just easy to take one strong player out of a game, reason or not. I got restless and argued that I'd just continue his work, which fired back to that then I of course also needed to be restricted. Spare me details please, it still hurts. On 28 August, we reached a point of a majority of one vote for banning Andy, and the voter cited one edit. I asked above which one. - I went to a concert that night, thinking that a wonderful collaboration was ended because of Andy trying to help me. Great concert, but I had black feelings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 September Ched (who had requested the case to ease things for infoboxes, remember?) left Wikipedia, disappointed. I left the two projects Classical music and Opera. Erik came to my talk, and the term cabal of the outcasts was coined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 September Relief. Not that the arb (who is again an arb now) noticed his mistake, but another one changed his vote, saying he didn't want his vote alone let ban a productive content editor. Not without irony, he had been the one who had requested to ban Br'er Rabbit (remember, who wanted that so, but still ...). I thanked him for a good approach, and wasn't the first to do so. Something is wrong if the (almost life and death) destiny of an editor on this project rests on one vote, imho. And then if that one vote is based on an edit correctly saying MoS in the edit summary ... - I should let go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9/11 The decision arrived, and I responded: "Ich steh hier und singe", which means, "I stand and sing", which is a quote from the funeral motet by Bach (which I sang on some 11 June, funeral 12 June), - in response to the raging of the world ("Tobe, Welt, und springe"). Also Kafka, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

during

  • 9 September Brianboulton - a leading FA writer, in case you don't know - tries something to please the critics of infobox opera, announced here. The wars could be over, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot tell what he did. Jmar67 (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could follow his link, and look in the article history for "box" or the date, or here you go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
His link is to the article. Still do not understand your point: that he added the infobox? Why would that please the critics? Jmar67 (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was infobox opera added not by a despised member of QAI to an obsure short opera article, but one of the most respected FA writers adding it (on trial) to a featured article, - a first. Gerda Arendt thought the infobox wars were over ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jetzetle. :-) You meant "silence the critics", I guess. Jmar67 (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

after

  • Several comments follow on my 2013 talk, one linking to this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 October I don't know if the writers of the decision are aware of it, but they intoduced the concept of ownership in the matter, by allowing me (but not Andy) to add infoboxes to articles I created. Next question: what is the meaning of "created". taken to ANI, but rejected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22 November Benjamin Britten's centenary, a bright day, Britten for TFA, nice comment a day later by author Tim riley, DYK article Festival Te Deum, new article A Boy was Born. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 24 November For the first time, I am interested enough in arbitration election to word questions for the candidates, derived from my disbelief about how poor the reasoning for banning Andy had been (citing one edit that clearly was only application of MoS), how little the arbs had looked into details, and how little a margin they'd accept when banning a prolific content editor. The questions are at the bottom, and they were answered mostly well by the candidates. I didn't mention the reasoning about calling be out for battleground behaviour but didn't think it had been any better in the case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25 December A Boy was Born is DYK for Christmas 2013, and the year closed peacefully. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 29 December so it seemed, until 28bytes, the arbitration candidate with the best result, also my admin of trust, resigned, first only as an arb, then leaving Wikipedia altogether. Sickening. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2014

  • January Smerus and Nikkimaria come to my talk in friendly mood, and I begin wok on my first solo FA, Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172, to become the first FA with infobox Bach composition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 March FA - and congratulations from Bencherlite, Tim riley, SchroCat and Dr. Blofeld, - amazing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary: we are now at a stage where Andy can add no infoboxes, and I only for articles I created, which was interpreted often as "initiated", - I got problems when I expanded a stub (and sometimes had forgotten I did that). Nikkimaria had "created" several Bach compositions by splitting content from existing ones (example), making the split-off part infobox-free (although the content was often written by me). Never mind. - Discussions on project opera about infobox for an opera vs. composer navbox in that position go on, with Andy, Viva-Verdi and Meister und Margarita for infobox, Softlavender and Robert.Allen for traditional navbox, Michael Bednarek open, and Voce saying: "Conversely, I hope that we can avoid a doctrinaire approach, learn to be comfortable with occasional variations when they serve the interests of the article and the reader, and above all treat each other with courtesy and good humour." The wars could be over with that approach. - 2014 was also the year Hafspajen decorated my talk, and I made my last comment ever on the talk of our founder. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 July A strange request for Arbitration Enforcement (AE) lands on Andy's talk. I later asked the new arb candidates about it, User:Gerda Arendt/ACE 2014. Perhaps first check out the diff that was given as a violation of the restriction, in which Andy alledgedly added an infobox. Did he? While that seems sooooo clear, we had long discussions across two noticeboards, and the best comment was by Boing! said Zebedee. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 December The talk of the QAI infobox page is archived for the first time (after the whole page had been moved to my personal space by someone who is not a project member, but reverted, and archiving set up by Andy). Various discussions, and table of how many infoboxes were there for the templates the project had created. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25 December Handel gets an infobox, which stays after a short back and forth (which I didn't notice until later, - busy elsewhere on Christmas Day) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30 December We have a cute persiflage of the infobox wars, and I think they are over, and best remembered as a farce. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015

2016

  • Ach Gott, wie manches Herzeleid (Oh God, how much heartache) becomes a theme of the year. Negative: dear people die. Positive: The article is one of more to come which I didn't create, but took to GA quality, and thus - per the "new owner's bonus" seen in Laurence Olivier - could add an infobox to. Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 January Two people who died, and played a role in my life, were Pierre Boulez and Nikolaus Harnoncourt. While Harnoncourt had an infobox since August 2015, I tried one for Boulez, reverted, and the resulting discussions on both the article talk (Talk:Pierre Boulez/Archive 1#Infobox) and Project:Composers (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 40) made me decide to never ever try that again. When I said "waste of time" later, I meant those discussions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 January Notice that Dreadstar died. Remember: who quit over LO. No way to heal that unfairness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14 March A user added an infobox to Peter Maxwell Davies, and after revert and discussion, it was accepted. Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 March I try to convince arbcom that restrictions for Andy are no longer needed, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Amendment request: Infoboxes (April 2016), succesfully so. Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 July We loose Alakzi. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16 July 2016 was the centenary of Max Reger's death. I wrote an FA for the occasion, Der 100. Psalm, and improved his article, then added an infobox. You will not be surprised that even in this case - where I had done the improving - I had to fight a revert by longish talk page discussion. But won. Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 August Gustav Holst. After a discussion about the usual hidden notice on composers' articles, I try to find out how people think, because there was no "consensus" yet established about infobox or not. Closed as no consensus 6 weeks later, with some remarkable comments in the discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 29 August The QAI talk infobox is proposed to be deleted. A list (see below) strictly of articles where infoboxes were reverted is described as "victimizing" editors. Therefore ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 31 August The QAI talk is archived a second time: 498 infoboxes musical composition, + 202 Bach, + 184 opera. Of the infoboxes reported as reverted during the infoboxes arb case, only 2 are still without infobox, and 1 is to date (and probably ever shall be, given the main author's preference). Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 September Wake-up call. I see sarcastic "congrats" addressed at my name, and get from the context that Tim riley left Wikipedia, and I am blamed for it, first by somone else, then by himself, and - needless to say - by his friends. To this day, I don't know how, - somehow probably related to the list of reverted infoboxes. Sad. Remember: always highly esteemed as a FA writer, with collaboration on Messiah (Handel) and a GA review for Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, especially esteemed for expanding Falstaff (opera) in memory of Viva-Verdi and leaving his infobox in place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 September "There is consensus that the page is furthering the infobox wars, whether or not that was the intention." is the edit summary for deleting the QAI infoboxes talk. This means that some people still think that there wars. Sad. These people don't like I list of the infoboxes they reverted. No surprise, actually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2017

2018

  • Psalms. The project begun is to improve psalm articles, not 1 2 3 but in the order links are seen in articles. The first causes an infobox discussion which spills to my talk, but it turns silent, and by now all advanced psalm articles have an infobox, see Psalm 70. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 October "Yay!", or: "And, no, there haven't been infobox squabbles in ages. I personally use them all the time now for biographies and operas. There are a few diehards left, but the general attitude from both perspectives seems to have settled on live and let live." - Refrain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019

  • Nice conclusion, isn't it? As of today, we have 1,750 infoboxes musical composition, 222 Bach composition and 1,055 opera. Not bad ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more: RexxS, a strong supporter of accessibility, becomes an admin. He wrote User:RexxS/Infobox factors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fond memory of Brian Boulton, who died on 9 December 2019 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 2020, we could realise that we have more productive things to do than waste time in arguments about infobox yes or no. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 2021, there were three RfCs: Cary Grant, Ian Fleming, Stanley Kubrick, and we discussed Jean Sibelius.

In 2022, we talk about Cosima Wagner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC) ... and then had RfCs about Laurence Olivier, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, James Joyce and Claude Debussy.[reply]

In 2023 we had an RfC for Jenny Lind and talked about Robert le diable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Quality_Article_Improvement/Infobox&oldid=1167407153"