Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes

Listing the successor of an incumbent politician

Hello. For an incumbent politician, should we list the presumptive successor on the infobox before the succession has taken place? (e.g. listing Donald Trump as the elected successor to Barack Obama before January 20, 2017.) The current consensus appears to be "no", as shown on George W. Bush's talk page in 2008, and the growing consensus on Barack Obama's talk page.

If this is the correct interpretation of the consensus, should we modify this MOS page to give Wiki-wide guidance against listing the successor until the transition has completed? Edge3 (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your idea but not its implementation. This would likely make the most sense in the documentation for {{infobox politician}} - you could just add the second sentence of what you added here, there instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've edited the template documentation as you suggested. Edge3 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Section-level infobox usage

I think the Using infoboxes in articles section should explicitly mention: Infoboxes need not be placed at the top of an article and can be used at the start of sections where such usage adds clarity. An example can be found at Atlassian § Products and services (while noting that, in this case, the infobox is near the end of the section – rather clumsy and not to be encouraged). Of course if section-level usage is not acceptable, then the style manual should explicitly say so. That seems unlikely seeing that the lead in this article contains the phrase "usually in the top right of an article". Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a case where the presentation of an infobox not being in the top right has caused dispute? --Izno (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes – optional plural parameters – removing (s) from labels

Hi all, I've started a discussion at WP:VPR#Infoboxes – optional plural parameters – removing (s) from labels about the possibility of removing "(s)" from the end of labels, and would appreciate your thoughts there! ‑‑Yodin^T 20:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should biographical articles always include an infobox?

Note: This discussion has been transferred over from Template talk:Infobox person.

Over on Talk:Stanley Kubrick, one can find the latest in a series of heated discussions as to whether or not the article Stanley Kubrick should have an infobox. I propose that all biographical articles, about persons living or dead (so long as the following information is verifiably known: name, birth date, death date if deceased, nationality, and perhaps occupation), should include the Infobox person template in their lede. Now, this would be a monumental, and I certainly expect a controversial, change. It would also conflict with the consensus acheived by WP:COMPOSERS to keep infoboxes off of most composer articles, so I am not sure how this conflict would be solved. Nonetheless, here's my point: I believe, while infoboxes are not always necessary, that biographical articles would benefit from the easily accessible and formatted information, and should therefore universally include them so long as the aforementioned information is known. –Matthew - (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that biographical articles should, as a rule of thumb, have infoboxes. I view it as a great way to sum up information about any given person without having to read through sometimes fairly lengthy articles to pick out this data. GauchoDude (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

So you would consider yourself as supportive of this proposal? –Matthew - (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)+

• I would, personally. As Winkelvi noted below, this should be more about how a typical, end user reads, interprets, and interacts with biographical articles. I believe for huge biographies like George Washington, Isaac Newton, and William Shakespeare as some examples, it is incredibly beneficial to have infoboxes listed as a shortlist for the "most important" information. At the end of the day, isn't that the sole purpose for the creation and usage of Template:Infobox person in the first place? GauchoDude (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I also feel biographical articles should have infoboxes. Have never understood why this isn't a standard for bios in Wikipedia. As far as composer articles go, I don't see why those articles wouldn't, either, as their articles are also bios. There are people who like and appreciate factoids about those they are looking into at Wikipedia. To me, it's a what's best for readers issue, not an editor's elitist, WP:IDLI attitude that should be considered first. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• IDLI, Winkelvi? Isn't it funny how this essay is something attributed to those who think differently to you. What is it when you don't like the fact an article doesn't have an infobox; is that IDLI too? Or is it just a socialistic crusade that you consider yourself to be the Führer of? Cassianto^Talk 18:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do you always have to use ad hominem against others who are merely expressing their opinions? If anyone is going for socialistic "führer" behavior here, it's you, since you just can't seem to stand it when someone sees the world of Wikipedia differently than you do. Grow up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That's rich coming from someone who's just told me to "grow up". "...you just can't seem to stand it when someone sees the world of Wikipedia differently than you do. Also rich, when you also exhibit behaviour that shows your own disdain for infobox-less articles. Still, never let the truth get in the way of having the last word. Cassianto^Talk 18:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am supportive of this proposal. I think that Infoboxes should be used wherever they are useful and this would tend to include biographical articles. In looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes I see exceptions or adaptations that make sense. Highly subjective material should be kept out of Infoboxes. Therefore I read about "confusing style and genre, setting forth haphazard lists of individual works" at "WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes" and I agree with that. Similarly I don't think Infoboxes should include "Influenced by" and "Influenced" fields. This tends to be subjective and is better addressed in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Per Matthew, GauchoDude and Winkeivi. Caden ^cool 11:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Somewhat enevitable, Caden. Cassianto^Talk 16:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Worum geht es dir? Caden ^cool 16:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto....Ich dachte, Sie im Ruhestand? Caden ^cool 17:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Caden, either contribute to this discussion like an adult, or kindly disappear. Cassianto^Talk 18:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion over transferring this RfC to this location

Just to point out that this RFC by its nature and location cannot mandate, prohibit, restrict or otherwise dictate infobox use anywhere on the encylopedia. WP:INFOBOXUSE is clear on this: "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 unless you are going to move this RFC to the MOS:INFOBOX talkpage and reframe the discussion to amend WP:INFOBOXUSE, any discussion here is a waste of time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC) I think MH knows this (hope so, anyway), but believe he is just testing the waters via survey to see if this is something that could be effectively pursued at MOSINFOBOX. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC) To be honest it hasnt a hope of succeeding. You cant mandate a swathe of articles are *required* to have specific content. It also arguably violates WP:CON. Its just never going to pass. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Infobox inclusion is best decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account particularly the importance of the information that would be included in the infobox, the length of the article, and the comprehensiveness of the lead. If this decision must be made project-wide, as you propose, I would prefer and believe it would be better for our readers to forbid all infoboxes, even where they are useful, than mandate them where they serve only to clutter the article; the current compromise is satisfactory. I also question the usefulness of having this discussion here: the question has already been debated ad nauseum, and this RfC certainly can't rewrite WP:INFOBOXUSE. Rebbing 15:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You say it will "clutter" the article. How does a rectangle "clutter" an article? (An Infobox is a rectangular area.) It is almost the opposite of "clutter". Bus stop (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - though I think most biographical articles should have an infobox, it should not be a requirement.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note that, under this proposal, an infobox would not be included on a biographical article where the subject's name, birth date, death date if deceased, nationality, and perhaps occupation could not all be verifiably identified. –Matthew - (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note that you are delusional if you think you can force this cancer on all biographies. Does Matron know you have access to the computer? Cassianto^Talk 18:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

What is carcinogenic about Infoboxes? Bus stop (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

They spread; they are difficult to get rid of; they appear in the form of an unsightly lump; the longer they're there, the more they grow; and there appears to be no cure in sight with regards to disputes like this. Cassianto^Talk 08:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

They do not spread, they are easy to get rid of, they appear in the form of an attractive rectangle, and the dispute is merely your insistence that creativity be suppressed in the form of article-writing. Is it so difficult to conceive two forms of article-writing existing simultaneously? One is for quick reading and the other is for slow but thorough reading. The reader is allowed alternatives. And it does not consume enormous resources. We are talking about a simple geometric form—a rectangle. The reader either chooses to look at it or not. Why are you disputing this? Readers approach articles in different frames of mind. There is the "glancing" frame of mind and there is the "thorough reading" frame of mind. The presence of the Infobox allows for both approaches to an article. The Infobox should be present even if it only contains the name of the person and their date of birth. It should be a standard feature of wikipedia biographies. There are other types of articles that should not have Infoboxes. Abstract expressionism should not have an Infobox. The material in that article doesn't lend itself to distillation. It is a concept. It is difficult to define. But biographies are different. There is a certain form taken by all people's lives. We facilitate the reader's approach to biographies by including an Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

More cretinous bullshit from someone who knows absolutely nothing about article quality. Of course they spread and if you take a look about at various infobox discussions you'll see they are very difficult to get rid of. Let's get one thing straight: I used to spend three months of my time investing, researching and the writing articles for passionate readers; I did not do all that so someone could use all my hard work to score free beer tokens in their local pub quiz. As far as I'm concerned, If it's "quick tit-bit" someone wants, then they can bugger off somewhere else. Failing that, EVERYTHING that you could've found in an infobox can be found in the lede. Why do you, Bus Stop, and people like you, insist on patronising people by dumbing an article down to a ghastly box? Cassianto^Talk 16:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto—don't you know that it is in poor form to alter one of your posts after I have already responded to it? You can characterize it as a "ghastly box" but properly used it is an elegant presentation of elemental information that a reader familiar with wikipedia can expect to find at certain articles. Predictability of placement of information in an Infobox is what makes it so easy to read. I'm sorry you feel your hard work is squandered on "free beer tokens in their local pub quiz" but articles are not written to serve any specific purpose. If just gathering elemental information is all some readers use our articles for, that should be OK for us too. You aren't here to accomplish anything but to disseminate information. It is my contention that two formats address two different approaches and relationships people have with articles—the in-depth approach and the far more superficial approach. I don't think it should matter to us. Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, there you go, "certain articles". And that's my point; my view is that certain articles benefit from them, hugely, and others don't. It's this whole idea that all articles benefit from them that drives me nuts. I see now we've gone one step further by insisting that despite whether they are beneficial or not, all articles must have them to fit in with consistency across the website. No, no, no. That is fundamentally wrong; to say they aid everybody on all articles is a bit like saying everyone has to have an asthma pump, regardless as to whether or not they need one as: "I believe it'll help you, therefore you must have one. Seems silly, as most other people have them. " In terms of WP:BIOGRAPHY, well that is a grey area; you have some biographies, such as sports, political, and armed services, that they serve a purpose on, whereas you have others, like media, classical music, chemistry, that they don't. Look, there's no point in discussing this further. ReexS has demonstrated the notion of compromise, of sorts, and you and others are stubborn to insist that there is no compromise. I think that says more about you than anything else. Cassianto^Talk 18:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose -- is it 1 April already? By the way, I take my hat off to MatthewHoobin for this clever bit of canvassing for the Kubrick talk page. Congratulations you. Cassianto^Talk 18:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not really trying to canvas here, bud. The Kubrick talk page was going nowhere, so I notified on the talk page, as well as on the user pages of several who were involved in the discussion (including those with viewpoints different from mine), that there was a discussion occurring over here. –Matthew - (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not your bud. What makes you think anyone gives a shit about your crusade to add Infoboxes to all articles? Why don't you and your friend Winkelvi go and write or review a Good Article somewhere rather than to waste your time (evident here) doing this? Cassianto^Talk 08:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - while I generally support the presence of infoboxes, this should remain a matter of consensus and discussion per ArbCom, since certain biographies benefit more of infoboxes over others. It shouldn't be a rule in any way. κατάσταση 18:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Arbcom does not make policy. They just re-affirmed the already existing community consensus for infoboxs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed Please tell me what purpose the infobox at Attallah Shabazz serves, except that it helped some editor with OCD sleep well knowing that she or he had added an infobox to a previously barren biography? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It helps to condense relevant information, such as birth date and location, into a nice little quadrilateral, and can allow itself for use in relation to Wikidata. –Matthew - (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@MShabazz: If you ask these sort of questions, you really ought to be expecting an answer, so here goes. The infobox at Attallah Shabazz provides a reader with 8 pieces of information about the subject. That information is in a predictable place and allows a visitor to quickly find the piece they may be looking for. It also emits the following microformats: "fn" (full name), "bday" (date of birth), "birthplace", and "category", which may be collected by third-party programs automatically. In addition it presents all of its data in a structured manner as key-value pairs, allowing articles and data dumps to be scanned by third-parties for any of that information in predictable way. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There are two different means of presenting information—a highly structured means and a freeform means. The body of the article, written in prose, lends itself to endless nuance. That can't be duplicated in a highly structured format such as an Infobox. But the highly structured format conveys limited information more efficiently. A reader familiar with our Infoboxes can take in a considerable amount of basic facts at just a glance. It doesn't matter if this information is duplicated very prominently in the article. These are two formats presented side-by-side, both available to the reader if they are inclined to avail themselves of one and/or the other. There are different ways of reading articles. The article can be thoroughly scoured or merely scanned. A person can start by a quick look at an infobox and proceed to a more thorough reading. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Bleh. it looks like I edit-conflicted with some sort of close over at Template talk:Infobox person. I wish people wouldn't unilaterally hat discussions that have been open for a short while and are still attracting comment. Anyway, some may know me as a strong proponent of infoboxes, but I have to admit that even I wouldn't want to see a requirement for infoboxes in biographies (or any other topic area). That's because the factors that need to be weighed in making a decision about whether an infobox would improve an article or not are too complex to be generalised as "all biographies should have one". It's equally true, of course, that I don't believe that there ever should be a blanket rule saying that any particular group of articles should not have an infobox. I do affirm that, in general, an infobox may be expected to improve an article, and I would normally hope that the burden of politely justifying a decision to exclude an infobox should fall on those who make such a decision. Nevertheless, at the risk of heresy here, I have grudgingly come to accept that one of the vital factors is the attitude of the editors who spend their time attempting to steward a given article. Infoboxes, like all content, require maintenance and it's really not productive to impose an infobox on an article where all of the regular maintainers are opposed to having one. Those are often the cases where the infobox falls out of date and out of sync with new content, thus becoming a source of misinformation, rather than fulfilling its role as a useful at-a-glance summary of key information related to the subject – a job for which it is the best tool on Wikipedia. The end of the infobox wars will come not with victory for one side or the other, but when all involved sufficiently de-escalate the conflict and are able to put up with each others' sincerely-held views – even the ones we know are dead wrong from our point-of-view! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Swift close/withdrawal of this RFC. Whatever your opinion on infoboxes, the question asked by this RFC is the completely wrong question and is clearly not well-researched. While we should have more guidance about infoboxes, this question doesn't get us there. --Izno (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose—too many issues surrounding infobox use have to be cleared up before posing such a question. Even then, forcing infoboxes regardless of context is a bad, bad, bad idea. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

What "issues surrounding infobox use have to be cleared up before posing such a question"? Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Lots, such as what information to include or exclude, how that information is included (automatically and silently via WikiData?), and what power WikiProjects have to force certain perspectives or types of information. For example, WP:NOVELS requires {{Infobox novel}} to include information specific to the first printing, including ISBN, page count, and original cover; {{Infobox book}} and {{Infobox graphic novel}} do not, as they are boxes for general information about the books, not just information specific to the first edition. Editors can avoid WP:NOVELS' requirements by not including an infobox, but if infoboxes become mandatory then we have to face these issues head-on—which means more of these disputes, not fewer. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOVELS and the like are irrelevant. This proposal is only concerned with articles about living or dead persons. Under this proposal, an infobox would only be included if the subject's name, birth date, death date, and nationality are verifiably known. If those conditions are met, that subject gets an infobox. From then on, the other parameters can be filled in where applicable. –Matthew - (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

"WP:NOVELS and the like are irrelevant.": You missed the point—there are plenty of sub-WProjects of using subtemplates of {{Infobox person}}, and any of them might take it upon themselves to force through parameters (like the ever-controversial "religion", "ethnicity", "nationality", etc). Until these issues are dealt with, taking away the option to leave out infoboxes will only increase the number of disputes. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not regardless of context, Curly Turkey. Only "so long as the following information is verifiably known: name, birth date, death date if deceased, nationality, and perhaps occupation". For instance, Bill Gates would have an infobox, while Wes Takahashi would not. But I understand your point. –Matthew - (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You mean the editors who decided Wes Takahashi should have an infobox would have that option taken away? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody decided whether Takahashi would have an infobox. I created that page, infobox included. But from what I think you mean, would editors who have decided that an article should not have an infobox get one anyway? Well, under this current proposal, yes. Although, I don't think infoboxes on most articles are the result of a decision-making process. Sure, Kubrick, Sinatra, and others have gone through hell, but I digress. –Matthew - (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "processes". When only one editor decides on whether to have an infobox, and nobody disputes it, that's consensus. What would be solved or improved by removing Takahashi's infobox by a technicality like this? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose insertion of infoboxes in all bio articles. Infoboxes should only be used if the article subject serves or served in governmental and political offices. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per the reasons listed by others above. If memory serves there is a policy where - when an infobox would only have one or two entries like "name" and "birthdate" - their use is deprecated. I cannot find the link to that at the moment but even if that policy has been changed there should still not be a blanket "must" or "must not" use guideline. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Although it is claimed that the thread from "Template talk infobox person" has been transferred here there are a few posts on that thread that did not make it across. My post is one of those so I copy/paste it here now with the original time stamp. MarnetteD|Talk 03:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)