User talk:Wugapodes/Ibox draft rfc

Some pings

@ScottishFinnishRadish and Red-tailed hawk: I see you both have been relatively active in closing infobox RfCs since I last waded in. Penny for your thoughts? There seems to be a relatively consistent, project-wide consensus in favor of inclusion of infoboxes given the list I've compiled (largely from Gerda Arendt's user pages, so if I've missed any please let me know, I'd like to be comprehensive). I'd be interested in what you both think should be included in a proposed text, especially ways to incorporate the insight from your closes as caveats or considerations. You'll see in the interlinear glosses some places where I left questions along those lines. — Wug·a·po·des 09:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the initiative. I suggest to include Brianboulton's 2013 essay in the reasoning, because he is an authority some of those rejecting infoboxes (at least for classical composers and certain poets) may accept. It also shows that the acceptance of infoboxes as a normal feature has a long history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

One more: the old wording about "consensus on each article's talk page" has been understood - perhaps misunderstood? - that you may not add an infobox without having found consensus before. We have countless hidden notices in composers' articles (see Debussy, Verdi), and I don't believe that they were ever compatible with the concept "any user can edit". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

detail in text "all compositions by Mozart", that's not possible ;) - Mozart's compositions with K. numbers run beyond 600. The idea is: don't argue which compositions are worth mentioning - which is a matter of taste - but link to the list. The lead can highlight genres or individual works.

other idea: I believe that for biographies, DOB, POB, DOD and POD should be filled if known. I have been reverted, see Samuel Barber.

I have not attended the two discussions that ended in no consensus, because I knew that their principal authors don't like infoboxes, and others may have done the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the Mozart example and incorporated some insight from the 2013 essay. W/r/t hidden notes, at the moment I think those are justified (well, Debussy at least). Since previous discussions resulted in not having one, it's better to seek consensus first, and a hidden comment is a normal way to note that. W/r/t what vital stats to include, I think it's better (at this stage) to leave out specifics and leave what is most important as an issue for local consensus at the article or wikiproject level. W/r/t the no consensus closures, I haven't studied them closely but I share the intuition that they're odd. At the very least, they weren't consensus against so saying "usually but not always" seems strongly supported even taking them at face value. — Wug·a·po·des 21:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Something I'm seeing is that all of the infobox discussions that you've noted in the list appear to be about infoboxes of biographies. My understanding of the dispute on infobox use that flares up every so often is that it's largely focused on how we apply infoboxes to biographies. The text at the beginning of the proposal (i.e. The use of infoboxes is recommended but not required) has considerably broader scope than the examples being cited. I imagine that most people are not going to want infoboxes for broad concept articles on abstract things (think: philosophy, time, Mathematics, and the like); when there's a box for these sorts of topics in the lead section, it tends to be a navbox. But if the point of the RfC is to come to a coherent community consensus about the active dispute, might it be more direct to launch an RfC that provides guidance specific to whether/how infoboxes should be used in biographies? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: I think a relatively broad recommendation is appropriate given current practice. Nearly every taxon, element, chemical, and settlement (to name a few) has an infobox. The RfCs are all on biographies because biographies are the last place where challenging an infobox is seen as acceptable. We don't have RfCs on taxa or settlements because there's an implicit consensus that they are a benefit and removing one would be seen as WP:POINTy disruption. I think limiting it to biographies misses out on documenting what is already an implicit consensus elsewhere. Part of that implicit consensus, which I think you pick up on with your examples, is that broad topics are better served by sidebars than infoboxes. I think that's actually a handy heuristic. I've tried to edit the text to better reflect all that. — Wug·a·po·des 19:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I question "flares up every so often". I don't recall a single RfC in 2018 to 2021, or actually to the end of 2022. Even those coming then were not "often". I wonder why any new RfC would have been needed after Mozart, where the typical 10-bullet-list of concerns had been eloquently refuted by Voceditenore (which many others had tried in earlier RfCs and discussions).

The dislike of infobox by some editors is not restricted to biographies. Just today I had reason to look at this gem of an edit for a classical concerto, and more recently my addition of infobox opera was not welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough; it seems like the area of dispute is broader than I had understood it to be. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

But the number of those who dislike is perhaps smaller than you think. I wonder if talking to those selected few, a single digit number, might be an easier way than an RfC that would keep many busy. In the past, there were around five users who would regularly revert infoboxes (a few of those in the history of Debussy), and at present, I see only Nikkimaria still doing that. I tried to talk to her and failed, but others - with less burden of a history - might be understood better. A simple compromise infobox in the style of Mozart and Beethoven would harm no article, not Cosima Wagner, not Debussy. The amount of arguments around five extra lines, standard for the beginning of biographies, is beyond my understanding. I was converted from finding infoboxes redundant to supporting them in one discussion, Talk:Samuel Barber/Archive 2#Infobox, in 2012, by "Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person..." ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)