User talk:Islandscarce/Colleen Evans

FYI, after lengthy discussions among multiple editors, there is a consensus not to include an infobox in the Colleen Evans article. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most arts articles, as here, do not. Here are some reasons why I disagree with including an infobox in Evans's article: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points about the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I never said we should include an info-box. I'm tired of making edits on the Colleen Evans page, only for them to be removed by dictators. I have made this Colleen page on my user page for myself. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyGiffen (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)