Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sally Jewell[edit]

It looks like an IP was having some issues with the infobox at that page, and ultimately removed it. I lack the technical expertise to fix the problem. Would someone mind taking a look? Go Phightins! 13:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox book request for comment[edit]

In August last year, all publication data in {{infobox book}} was merged into one new |published= parameter. Work began on migrating existing uses to the new format, until questions were raised about the effect this had on data granularity.

Any input and suggestions on a proposed fix, which keeps the new one-line per edition formatting while providing full data granularity would be much appreciated (centralised discussion here). Thanks. ‑‑xensyriaT 23:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Composite and collapsable section Infoboxes[edit]

Is it possible or does it already exist to be able to have infoboxes on pages which are composites of other infoboxes for example Infoboxes for Models and Singers which use the relevant section from the two infoboxes but where both sections are collapsable. I am wondering as when it comes to some notable people who have many carers such as people who are both models and singer or politicians who have been notable previously such as astronauts or sportspeople is there a way of having one infobox containing all of the information relevant to the individual in the one infobox as opposed to having multiple separate infoboxes for the person. If this currently doesn't exist is there a way of going about initiating this process and allowing it to be come a reality. I am not advocating or suggesting the removal of separate boxes in articles or individual info boxes. It is just seemingly silly not to be able to have this capability for people who are notable and for more than one reason. Sport and politics (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

yes, it is possible to (1) embed an infobox into another one (see the modules part of {{infobox person}}), and (2) it is technically possible to have that section collapsed, but this part is more controversial (see Template:Collapsed infobox section begin). Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

contentious material in infoboxes[edit]

Ought the project consider any standards for what appears to be a growing problem: the insertion of "contentious claims" in infoboxes even where such claims are not explicitly stated ass fact in articles? Google appears to rely heavily on them, and thus any claim made in an infobox becomes the first thing a searcher finds on any topic. My own suggestion would borrow from existing policies:

No claim shall be placed in an infobox which is disputed in the main test of the article, and where possible the 'least contentious' wording for any claim shall be used in any infobox. All claims about living persons in infoboxes are subject a strong interpretation of WP:BLP.

Any opinions thereon? Collect (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have some examples? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The example currently is UKIP where the discussion is whether a list of reliable sources calling it "far right" (and fully an equal number just using "right" and specifically distancing the UKIP from the "far right") is sufficient to label the party "far right" in the infobox where the body of the article does not so state, but quotes a number of sources using "right wing" in the body of the article. My suggestion is that where a term or claim might be reasonably deemed contentious, that the least contentious term should be in the infobox / Google snippet as any infobox claim is intrinsically "in Wikipedia's voice.". Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I see the example. Rather than get into the discussion on the UKIP talk page, I'll comment here. The reference for the infobox entry is problematic. It refers to page 2009, but the book only has 251 pages. (Perhaps they are referring to a 2009 edition in error?) The book itself has chapters about nordic countries, not the UK. So this particular reference (and infobox entry) can be removed as failing verification. With this in mind, I'd say that contentious claims ought to go in the text where they can be better described and documented. – S. Rich (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Question on infobox pseudo-namespace[edit]

Am I right to believe that google and others use infobox pseudo-namespace to grab info and it is better to bypass all redirects to infoboxes that not use Infobox ... name convention? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

We are now effectively "Google snippet providers" and thus should be exceedingly careful about what is in them. Collect (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)