Talk:Lengberg Castle

A fact from Lengberg Castle appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 July 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Lengberg Castle has a vault which contained 600-year-old brassieres described as a "'missing link' in the history of women's underwear"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lengberg Castle.

Wikipedia

Infobox[edit]

I've added an infobox to this article, but its been removed, twice, the second time with the edit summary "…that's a whole lotta templatecruft for little benefit". Its not cruft, and the benefits are considerable. Not only do infoboxes summarise our articles for the convenience of our readers, but they emit metadata which is not otherwise available. The infobox should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user Pigsonthewing, that an infobox would be a valuable addition here, however, instead of his 'Infobox building' (which basically repeats what's already there), I would suggest using the Template:Infobox Castle instead with the map of exact location in Austria. Poeticbent talk 19:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely disagree with the infobox originally added; I'm not familiar with the castle infobox, so not sure how it would look. This is a fairly short article - the infobox added was literally longer than the entire article body, at least on my screen - so I don't know that it really needs a box to summarize, at least at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the length of the infobox an issue? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the purposes of the infobox is to summarize the key details about an article; when the infobox is longer than the article itself, it would be more productive to simply read the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise; from your "on my screen" comment, I assumed you were taking about the physical size of the box. The infobox as not longer, in terms of word count, than the article. Other than labels, it included just nine words of content, plus two years and a set of coordinates, and the image which was already (and remains) in the article. The article itself on the other hand, is 290 words, not counting references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either would do; but Infobox building can also take a map. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the infobox included a map, I'd vote in favour of it; I'd go for Infobox military structure myself. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that {{Infobox Castle}} redirects to {{Infobox military structure}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... the function of an infobox; it serves as a précis of the article. The vast majority of visitors to any article do not read the article. People are looking for a fact and the obvious ones are what belong in the box. This is also why articles have a TOC; so people can skip right to "Works", for example. I know, you want them to all read the page. But that's not realistic. People browse the web, they skim, and when something catches their interest, then they might buckle down and read teh brilliant prose."

It is not appropriate for this war to be fought article by article, which is disruptive. Infoboxes appear on the vast majority of well developed articles and are a de facto standard. Those seeking their removal should attempt to get a site wide consensus on the issue before disrupting individual or classes of articles.

Infoboxes enjoy site wide support as demonstrated by their millions. The onus is always on those who would deviated from site norms.

Guidelines are descriptive so when they are at odds with ambient practise they're simply out-of-date guidelines. There are millions of infoboxes and easily hundreds added to articles each day. Too many participants seek to retard progress :/

Infoboxes are part of the site's design. They are to serve readers who are looking for a précis, who are surfing. Seeking to exclude the infobox is akin to wanting some other part of the MediaWiki interface gone, such as the wiki-globe. It would be better to view the infobox as a sibling to the column of stuff to the left of the article.

Have a look at Andy's signature:

[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing) ...

Those classes are about generating microformats; metadata. That's what infoboxes do (besides, of course, offering a précis of the topic). Those who argue for infoboxes do so for solid reasons. Most of the arguments against infoboxes are mere subjective personal preferences, and are about wanting to drive eyeballs to teh brilliant prose.

nb: {{infobox building}} is to be preferred because it actually invokes {{infobox}}. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best solution - put the infobox back in and expand the article. PumpkinSky talk 00:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing references[edit]

The links that were referenced on the university website are out of date and have gone missing from the web.

2602:306:37CD:2DD0:DDCA:6312:ADDE:4F62 (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]