Talk:Cecchino dei Bracci

Info box

I think having the info box improves the article by having all key biographical details in one place. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That's nice for you, however it doesn't. Everything can be found by averting your eyes to the left. When the article becomes more complex, a box may be required. Until then, a box here looks stupid. Cassianto^Talk 14:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh gosh, look what I've gone and done. I've added more detail to the info box so that it has even more content. I hope that doesn't mean you have to eat your words now. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I certainly won't, and I'd thank you kindly to adopt a more collaborative tone, thanks. Now, the stuff in the infobox doesn't match the lead section which, and I'm sorry if I offend you, is far more important than the infobox. This article needs to expand by at least 10,000 bytes for the infobox to effectively do it's job. Also, the information in the idiotbox needs to reflect what's in the text. I hope that helps. Happy editing! Cassianto^Talk 13:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a more collaborative tone when you start adopting a more collaborative tone rather than the patronising approach you decided to kick this debate off with. Using terms like "idiotbox" - really? Do grow up. The text needs to align with the information box and vice versa. Until you can point to specifically to wiki guidance that states when info boxes may or may not be used then I see no reason not to include it - no rules have been violated. I'll give you a day or two to clarify why an infobox is specifically not allowed (short article word count) etc. After that I suggest we reinstate the box. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Try WP:INFOBOXUSE. Cassianto^Talk 12:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It says: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." So can we have an adult discussion now about why it is not appropriate - in this instance - to use a infobox (beyond your evident personal preference)? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I've said all I've needed to say. See this for my opinions. Open an RfC if you have to, but I'm still opposed to one at this stage until this article has at least been expanded by around 10,000 bytes. I'm puzzled as to why you crave one so much. Cassianto^Talk 14:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually I'm indifferent. It just irritated me that you decided to kick this all off by removing the box and justifying such a move with the one word "ridiculous". I therefore decided to make you work a bit harder. We need to edit articles on a sound basis, not just on a whim. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

How disappointing to see that you've been wasting everyone's time. Cassianto^Talk 13:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I have corrected the dates etc to reflect the couple of refs I have also added. An IB is of no benefit in this article and was, in fact, including inaccurate and inconsistent information. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well what was the inaccurate and inconsistent information? Can you not be more specific? Presumably just the birth and death dates (which could have been amended). So on what grounds have you otherwise removed the box? You haven't explained - aside from "of no benefit".Contaldo80 (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The entire article basically consists of name, date of birth and death and burial place, the rest is an unsourced quote farm (most of which should be removed). There is no reason to repeat the same information, which is already given twice in the article in the lead and the text, in an infobox. SagaciousPhil - Chat 03:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sculptor?

I assume I'm overlooking text describing him as a sculptor? If not, perhaps we should remove the sculptor categories? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)