Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

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. Rebb ing 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 acknowledges that as much as he adores them, they don't work everywhere, whereas we have you and others who are stubborn enough to insist that there is no compromise and that it's either your way or the no way. I think that says more about you than anything else. Cassianto ^Talk 18:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the Infobox be useful on articles which are biographies involving people in "media, classical music, chemistry"?[1] Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Because there is nothing to say. Media articles and the like are too simplistic to contain bulleted information. Everything in the box is replecated in the first few lines of the lead section. Information like where born; where died; where buried; influences; associated acts; kids; siblings; education; favourite colour; tea or coffee preference; favourite holiday destination...why is any of that of interest? Why does it need to be repeated? Why do you think our readers are stupid enough to need it in bulleted form? Would it aid your understanding of the subject? Cassianto ^Talk 19:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you opposed to the Infobox at H. L. Mencken? Bus stop (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you trying to control this debate by asking me questions and not answering mine? Cassianto ^Talk 20:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

But seeing as you ask, yes, I am opposed to it, and here's why:

The "family", "relatives", and "spouse" fields are not important. Everyone has family, we get it. It is fodder to simply fill out parameters. Why stop at those? Why not cousins, in-laws, aunts and uncles? These sorts are things are irrelevant for an encyclopedia. They are not some of the first things I should want to see.
The box has one "notable credit", The Baltimore Sun. The only notable credit? Or someone's POV? This is open to addition, after addition, after addition.
"Occupation" is in the first line of the lede; it's not difficult to find; chances are the reader would already know what Mencken does, and who he was, before clicking onto his article.
Birthday and death day are the same. They are in the first line of the lead. Eyes are naturally drawn to text. One would expect this sort of information in an encyclopedia article to be immediately after the name.
A well-written lead should have where he was born in the first line of the second paragraph. His age in numericals is irrelevant.

And there we go, not much left is there? Cassianto ^Talk 20:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

How do you feel about this infobox? Would you not agree with the following?

Born - In the first line of the lede, so pointless;
Nationality - In the first line of the lede, so pointless;
Known for - pointless as I've already read the fist few sections with regards to the notability of this case;
Criminal penalty - why is this relevent?
Criminal status - we get it; he's in prison. Repeated from the field up;
Spouse - pointless and irrelevant.
Conviction - no shit! And it's in the first para of the lead

Again, another waste of space when compared to the detailed lead section, would you not agree? Cassianto ^Talk 20:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto—Infoboxes are an alternative approach to using a wikipedia biographical page. You keep arguing that the information is duplicated. You keep arguing that the information is easy enough to find in the article. But readers approach wikipedia biographical page in varying ways. Or, the same person can first glance at the Infobox and then read all or part of an article as their interests dictate. Alternatively they can use the internal links provided in an Infobox. The thing is an Infobox is easy to read. An Infobox takes "reading" to a different level. The whole thing is taken in at once. All of the extraneous language of prose is missing. And the placement of information is predictable. Any reader with a familiarity with wikipedia biographies takes in at a glance certain key facts about the subject of the biography. This is not "reading" in the usual sense. It is a different form of information communication. It supplements the article. It is simply an alternative. It is an auxiliary component. And it merely resides in an unobtrusive rectangle, with some key facts arrayed in a way that is familiar to all repeat users of wikipedia.Your approach to opposing Infoboxes is a purist approach that favors one form of information communication and opposes its opposite. But we aren't here to show the world how to write biographies. I can concede that the more proper presentation is the one in long form. A well-written article is infinitely superior to the sketchy facts contained in an Infobox. But the accessibility of an Infobox favors the quick assimilation of information that benefits all readers and harms no one. Bus stop (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm bored of your "I'm not listening to you, I know best and I don't care what you have to say" rhetoric. This, ladies and gentlemen, is why the infobox issue can never be solved. Just tonight I've shown a tolerant side [2] and a side which appreciates Infoboxes on an article to article basis [3]. It is something which, thankfully, separates me from the likes of you. Cassianto ^Talk 21:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It is possible that articles other than biographies would benefit from the presence of an Infobox but it seems clear to me that all biographies lend themselves eminently to the inclusion of an Infobox. Your argument is that the material is in the article. Irrelevant. These are two different ways of reading a biography, with vast differences, but both useful to the reader. Your argument is that the Infobox is "ghastly". I don't get it. It is a rectangle. Are all rectangles "ghastly"? Bus stop (talk)

Interjecting a mild point here: the shape of the box is irrelevant. I suspect you (Bus stop) know this. It might actually be more aesthetically pleasing if infoboxes were oval-shaped, but it is not their shape that matters. It is their location that is more pertinent - it should be permissible to have an infobox located elsewhere in the article (collapsed even) with a link if needed to allow those looking for it to get there from where they expected to find it. I get the arguments about visibility being needed for the data to be maintained and updated, but that doesn't fly with well-developed articles that have enough ongoing attention already. Incidentally, My main use for infoboxes is to look up how old someone was when they died (this often gets left out of the main article), and I do use them to look up birth and death years (more precise dates I tend to double-check with the original source, as Wikipedia is not reliable enough there). In some ways, Wikidata may in the long run help here. Infoboxes should really only contain data, and data that can be securely referenced. Anything vague should be avoided. Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth—you mention you use Infoboxes. You use them for your purposes. I suspect that anyone who uses them, uses them for their own purposes. In my experience a glance at an Infobox is my first step upon landing on a page. There is so little to lose because the investment of time is so slight. As concerns rectangular shape I am responding to arguments denouncing its appearance. I simply don't think it detracts from appearance, and I don't think it subtracts an unreasonable amount of square units from the surface area of the page. You say that "it should be permissible to have an infobox located elsewhere in the article (collapsed even) with a link if needed to allow those looking for it to get there from where they expected to find it". I obviously disagree. The Infobox should hit you in the face the moment you land on a page. It should be at the top of the article. It should not be collapsed. A reader should not have to click on a link to get to it. The use of the Infobox should be almost unconscious. How long does it take to glance at the content of an Infobox? It is an introduction to an article. It can also tell a reader if this is not an article they are interested in. Nobody wants to waste any more time than necessary to get a taste of the article. Bus stop (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"It should be at the top of the article. It should not be collapsed. A reader should not have to click on a link to get to it." You, Bus Stop, are thoroughly disruptive. You are the very reason why infobox disputes take place. However much I hate them, even I consider a collapsible infobox to be a happy compromise. I suggest we leave Bus Stop to wallow in his own self pity. Cassianto ^Talk 11:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, what is your view on stubs and article quality? I wrote James Boyton a few months ago. Should stubs like that have infoboxes? My view is that the time is better spent expanding the article. There are advantages to people working in parallel to article writing and working just on infoboxes and infobox data, and populating articles (and sometimes Wikidata) that way, but my view is that having an infobox too early in the development process can detract from focusing on the work that needs doing. My view is that you should only have an infobox when there is an article worth summarising. I would go so far as to say that infoboxes should be considered and added only when enough work has been done to (say) reach a good article review stage. That ensures that article writing and finding good references comes first (as it should), and that infobox considerations are secondary (as they should be). Too many articles languish as stubs or start-class, with bots making tiny changes and drive-by editors making changes across a series of articles without stopping to actually improve the articles. I am guilty of this myself (currently applying a template across several hundred articles, some in poor shape), but some people don't seem to even care about this. They think they are improving things, but they are just making almost cosmetic changes at the edges and leaving the real work undone. Carcharoth (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point: "my view is that having an infobox too early in the development process can detract from focusing on the work that needs doing". I agree. Stubs need not have Infoboxes when they are still under development. Every aspect of an article takes work. It is more difficult to distill out of an article those points that warrant noting in an Infobox before the lengthy article is written out. You make an excellent point. The thinking process should go from lengthy article to abbreviated Infobox. You say "infobox considerations are secondary (as they should be)". Not meaning to be argumentative but Infoboxes are neither primary nor secondary—in importance. Yes, the order in which the total page is put together favors first writing the article and then constructing an Infobox. But neither is more important. They each serve different though related roles. The Infobox is taken in almost instantaneously, by the reader. The reading of all or part of the body of the article, written in prose, is a much longer process. I think it is important to value the reader's time. The Infobox allows the reader to spend as little time as possible evaluating unfamiliar material. Bus stop (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: You raise an interesting point about article creation. Interestingly, I've been recently looking at the issues from a different viewpoint and I'm exploring another use of infoboxes in connection to that. As Wikidata continues to grow, we will begin to have information available for other Wikis that is not represented on the English Wikipedia. For example, an Indian politician such as Sherry Ayesha Bai is almost certainly notable, but only has an article in the Malayam Wikipedia, although the data from that article is now available on Wikidata at K.O. Aysha Bai (Q13111479). I've been looking at ways of making that information available via a Wikidata-aware infobox that could be dropped (perhaps temporarily) onto an article under construction to immediately give a quick overview of what facts are likely to be available. Of course, the editor still needs to do the research and find the best references, but it would be a pointer to what could be found. If someone is interested in political biographies, for example, then the Italian, French, German, etc. Wikipedias will have lots of notable politicians not represented here, and all of that is collected centrally at Wikidata. Sadly, the referencing on Wikidata itself is too often insufficient, so you usually have to search through the article in the foreign Wiki to find the appropriate reference. Nevertheless, the situation is improving, albeit slowly. Of course, this technique is likely to have more potential in smaller Wikipedias like the Welsh Wikipedia as a help to getting started on importing articles from the English Wikipedia than the other way round. Anyway, I though it worth mentioning that there may be an argument for having one kind of infobox much earlier in the article's development than you are contemplating. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:24, 8 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)

Well yeah, of course we aren't buds. It's sarcasm. You sounded like Phillip just then, for heck's sake. Clearly some folks are interested in the discussion, given all the arguing going on. Also, again, I don't want to "add Infoboxes to all articles". –Matthew - (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to be interested about. This topic has been discussed for years and the reason for that is because people like you, Bus Stop and the others, whose names I forget, are POV pushing trouble makers who are not willing to compromise. The consensus is clear here and I'm surprised it hasn't been archived. Cassianto ^Talk 17:27, 8 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. κατάστασ η 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)

Arbitrary break 2

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)

Oppose I thought we'd settled this. Per opposers. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose imposing such uniformity. I'm a techie and I love infoboxes. However Wikipedia is many different encyclopedias: cultural, historical, scientific, popular culture, military, and so on. The corresponding printed encyclopedias have developed various styles, and that is also true here. Wikipedia contributors (call ourselves encylopedists) are as varied as the areas and we need to support that. We require notability and verifiability as shown by coverage in reliable independent sources. Other than that, we need to allow editors to have preferences and yet work together. As various as editors are, we don't need all articles to look alike. I realize that the proposal aims at reducing a perpetual conflict, but respect for others' preferences on all sides would also reduce the perpetual conflict. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Those who are pushing for an infobox in all bio articles, would have better success if they opted for the collapsed version. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

GoodDay—why do you feel that way? You only posted one other time in this RfC. In that post you said "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".[4] That explanation accompanied your "Oppose" vote. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are. Can you flesh them out a little more fully? Why only in cases in which the article subject has served in governmental and political offices? Don't you think the Infobox serves in any beneficial capacity in relation to biographies in general? Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

They're alright, when we need to show the dates for when a person serves or has served in a position, is a member of a political party, who their predecessor and successor are. As for other bio articles? I don't see any benefit to infobox use. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

So, therefore, for instance, you don't think the Infobox at H. L. Mencken serves much purpose? Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I would rather the infobox at Mencken be deleted or at least collapsed. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In the interest in understanding your opposition can you tell me why for instance you think the Infobox at H. L. Mencken should be deleted or collapsed, GoodDay? Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Mencken held no office or position & thus there's no requirement to show years of service. PS - This Rfc would've had a much better chance of passing, if the question had been collapse infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You say that this RfC "would've had a much better chance of passing, if the question had been collapse infoboxes" but a collapsed Infobox is a severe compromise. That is because the reader has to take an action in order to see the Infobox. The purpose of an Infobox, in my opinion anyway, is to convey instantaneous although very limited information. This information plays a guidance role in the reader's next actions—to read the article in full or in part, or to not read the article at all. This is in the service of valuing the reader's time. All readers are not at the given page for the purpose of thoroughly reading the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I prefer our readers go over the articles in full & thus continue to oppose the 'blanket' insertion of infoboxes on all bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You say you "prefer our readers go over the articles in full" but the Infobox serves as an introduction to the article, GoodDay. The first thing they see is the Infobox. We have millions of articles. The reader is not going to read every article in full—nor are you or I. By means of the Infobox the reader develops a level of interest which either propels them to read the page or use their favorite navigation technique to find another page, potentially to read. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You might wish to consult WP:LEAD. Try reading the first, say, two paragraphs, "in the usual sense", rather than trying to beam them into your dental filings or whatever you think your "different level" of reading does. Choess (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Choess: I've written two dozen FAs, more than two dozen more GAs, and have done close reviews of far more than that number of articles at FAC and GAN, as well as having read perhaps hundreds of articles through just for pleasure. I still use infoboxes when they're there. Could you give me an adjective to describe how stupid I must be? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I see you withdrew your question, but as I poked fun at your enthusiasm for infoboxes, I think you deserve a serious answer by way of solatium on my part. First, while I find your description a little breathless, I think you do bring up an important point, which is that many people will look at the very beginning of an article to get what they want and go away without reading it in its entirety. My response to that, unpacked, is that a well-written lead will have the same effect. It's at the top of the article, the first thing the reader's eyes brush when reading left to right, and in biographies, will always include dates of birth and death immediately after the name. As encyclopedists, I think we should try to make that "beginning experience" deliver the essence of the article's subject as efficiently as possible.

Infoboxes in particular are optimized for delivering attribute–value pairs. For some subjects, that's what best captures their essence. Chemical elements are in large measure defined by their numerical properties, and taxonomic groups by their position in the taxonomic hierarchy; delivering that information in prose is relatively painful compared to an infobox, and it would be stupid to omit an infobox on one of those articles. (The combination of picture and numerical data really plays to the infobox's strength, here.) On the other hand, the essential description of a particular person is not, in my opinion, as easily broken into discrete values. (Consider the wrangling that often occurs when trying to characterize a person's nationality or religion.) Here, the flexibility of prose in a written lead is often a superior way of capturing that essence. Infoboxes offer something of an intellectual false economy here: it's less mentally demanding to plug values into an infobox than it is to think hard about how to describe the essentials of a person in prose, but plugging values into the infobox may miss essence for accident. The qualities that are easily generalized across people (date and place of birth and death, names of family) are not necessarily the best qualities to use in summarizing a given person. There are probably particular groups of people where individuals can be boiled down to attribute-value pairs without too much sacrifice, but applying it to all biography is a step too far, IMO. I hope this explanation is of use to you. Choess (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Choess—perhaps a good solution to the question we are addressing in this RfC would be to omit Infoboxes from all biographies. Would you support that? Or are you of the opinion that some biographies should have Infoboxes and other biographies should not have Infoboxes? If that would be your position, how would you distinguish between biographical articles that warrant the inclusion of Infobox and biographical articles that do not? Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Choess: "Consider the wrangling that often occurs when trying to characterize a person's nationality or religion."---both of these have been deprecated. My question above was sarcastic yet earnest. Could I get a response? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Well, no, you can't, because as phrased, the question requires me to assent to a false premise. To answer more indirectly: casually examining, say, Goodman Beaver, I think a captioned image would do just as well as an infobox, and I'd probably say that if I were reviewing it at FAC; but de gustibus non disputandem est, and I wouldn't withhold support because you insisted on an infobox. Sitting down, reading and assimilating sources, and distilling them into properly referenced prose is a fairly arduous task. Surprisingly few people are willing to do it on a regular basis. There's nothing wrong with wikignoming, but badgering people who are actually doing writing into compliance with some sweeping encyclopedia-wide rule about minutia is an extravagant sacrifice to a (foolish?) consistency. Choess (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Choess: Thanks, you're right, it's pointless and I've removed it. An infobox would not be pointless at, say, Madman's Drum, but not because I fear readers will neglect the prose I toiled over and spent my hard-earned money purchasing sources for. I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't buy the line that an infobox in any way detracts from the prose, and pointing to WP:LEAD doesn't address why people want infoboxes in the first place. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What I should have said, had I opted for clarity over elliptical snark, would be something to the effect of "WP:LEAD has already anticipated your concerns." More or less everything Bus stop said about the infobox in his comment of 22:49 corresponds to a part of that guideline. "serves as an introduction" → "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." "the first thing they see is the Infobox" → "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read." "The reader is not going to read every article in full" → "For many, it may be the only section that they read." "the reader develops a level of interest which either propels them to read the page or..." → "A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article...".

But writing a lead requires considerable delicacy. (I know I don't usually make a good stab at it until I'm done the rest of the article and can review and digest it.) Some of that is lost in the infobox because of the expressive limitations of the structured format. When someone, original author or not, sails into an article and adds an infobox, they're effectively writing the lead all over again—making an assertion that the data points in the box constitute a proper overview of the topic. For some articles, you really don't lose much in the change of format. But for subjects requiring a more delicate treatment, it bears an uncanny resemblance to this. There's a tremendous amount of latitude here for personal taste (and galactic-level reserves of pique and pride on both sides at this point), but I think there's at least a defensible case to be made that for some biographies, the format of an infobox will inevitably impose an unacceptable level of oversimplification in what's presented to the reader. Choess (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"When someone, original author or not, sails into an article and adds an infobox, they're effectively writing the lead all over again—making an assertion that the data points in the box constitute a proper overview of the topic."—I don't see how this follows. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: No, I don't think they would. I know of at least one editor/reader who suffers from multiple sclerosis and whose resulting problems with control of a mouse makes clicking on a tiny [show] link quite difficult. They have complained in the past that collapsed content is a frustration for them. So if you're advocating satisfying somebody's aesthetic sensibilities rather than improving functionality for visitors with physical impairments, you'll lose that argument every time (and twice on Sundays). Collapsed infoboxes, like any other collapsed content, need much better justification than somebody merely thinking the page looks prettier. --RexxS (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent point. I hadn't considered readers with physical limitations. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

However proud we may be of the body of our articles, we can't and shouldn't force readers to plow through them if they don't care to. WP:LEAD recognizes that "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read."

Choess—you say that "sitting down, reading and assimilating sources, and distilling them into properly referenced prose is a fairly arduous task." What does this have to do with whether or not an article should have an Infobox? Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the question be the other way around? That task is the fundamental mission of writing an encyclopedia: how does forcing the people doing that task to add infoboxes help them carry it out? Choess (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody forces them to add an infobox; other people do it for them, just like categories, navboxes, etc. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought the lead section would be seen by a reader before an infobox? (I know that on some mobiles with small screens, the infobox does come first). But seriously, Bus stop, you are trying to design things for what you think is the most common way to read an article. There are many different ways. Articles without an infobox are still just as readable as those without. It is not essential to have an infobox. Many people ignore infoboxes and just read the articles. And to go back to the point about collapsed boxes, my point there was mainly that articles without an infobox should still have somewhere to receive or output metadata and microformats. But it shouldn't have to be an infobox that does that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Carcharoth—there really isn't reading involved in reading Infoboxes any more than there is reading involved in reading a newspaper headline. You say "many people ignore infoboxes and just read the articles." That is as likely as someone picking up a newspaper at a newsstand and not reading the headlines. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper headlines are more equivalent to article titles. There is no real equivalent to infoboxes in newspapers. I can assure you that people do read articles without reading any infobox that has been included in the article (you might glance at an image in the infobox, but that would be about it). Why would an experienced reader of Wikipedia read the infobox when they know it is just repeating information in the article? In theory you can read an article without even reading the lead section. The essence of an article is the text and its references. Everything else is bolted onto that, improving it yes, but an addition rather than an alternative. It is only the lead section and infoboxes that claim to be an alternative way to 'read' (or skim, or glance at) an article. And a well-written article will draw the reader in (providing they are interested in the subject, or willing to be interested), and the infobox is really not part of that process. Think of the times you have read a really good Wikipedia article. What do you remember about it? The infobox? No. You remember how the subject was presented to you in an engaging manner, educating you, hopefully with well-chosen illustrations and good balance and succinct yet clear text, leaving you knowing more after reading it. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You make some good points. I'd still like to know what you or others see as the downside of Infoboxes. They take up too much space? Something else? Bus stop (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Mainly what Choess has already said. But also that they can (when poorly done) be a distraction. True appendix material, such as navboxes and footer templates, and categories, sit quietly down the bottom of the article. I can confidently say that if infoboxes for biographical articles were designed to be quietly tucked away down at the bottom of the article, there would be far less angst about them. A lot of the angst comes from the prominent placement up at the top of the article. But then that is the point of them, isn't it. To compete as an alternative, which some are happy to ignore, and others see as distracting (and sometimes even misleading) the reader (see the 'loss of nuance' points above). Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Imagine there were 5-6 formats for a reader to choose between when reading an article. At the moment, with an infobox you have arguably 2-3 (infobox, lead, main article). When you provide too much choice, it can start to detract. Imagine someone comes up with another article summary format (unlikely) and tries to shoehorn that in at the top of all articles. You have to draw the line somewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You talk about nuance. Let us sort this out. The body of the article contains the most nuance. The lead contains some nuance. And the Infobox contains no nuance. I think we agree up to this point. The material addressed in the Infobox is incontrovertible material. Though it lacks nuance, it definitely corresponds to the article. A reader can glean information from it. It may lack nuance but why such a high value place on nuance at the expense of incontrovertible material that perfectly corresponds to the article? Of course what we are talking about are dates of birth and death, places of birth and death—just look at the H. L. Mencken article. Was his "Occupation" Journalist, satirist, and critic? I'm trying to find out what you find problematic in that. Did he work for The Baltimore Sun? Did he have a wife named Sara Haardt? Did he have a notable brother named August Mencken Jr.? Was his father August Mencken Sr.? What is your objection to the inclusion of such non-nuanced material in a rectangle at the top of that article? All material provided for the reader does not have to be predigested for the reader. The reader is perfectly capable of handling raw material as long as it is incontrovertible material. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, no. When nuance is lost, it is lost. The reader won't realise this. You say: "The reader is perfectly capable of handling raw material as long as it is incontrovertible material." If nuance is lost and mostly irrelevant 'raw material' is included, then the reader can easily get the wrong impression. Humans and their life stories are invariably complex. You can put some of that in an infobox (I would say only name, birth date, death date and sometimes but not always nationality), but push that too far and it falls apart. Describing their 'occupation' is also useful, but very often this is not a set value. The set formula used in the first sentence communicates all that anyway: PERSON (born YYYY, died XXXX) was a <nationality> <occupation>. All the infobox does is repackage that in a box. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: You're quite wrong. Much of the information available in an encyclopedia is not nuanced and there's nothing to "lose". For every Beethoven whose date of birth is unknown, there are a hundred other subjects whose date of birth is a simple fact. You say that particular skills are required to write a good lead. That is true; but the job of creating a good infobox also involves particular skills such as the ability to decide what facts are capable of being briefly summarised and which are key facts related to the subject that should be included. A poorly written infobox is no more an argument against infoboxes than a poorly written lead is an argument against having a lead. There are three different audiences we are writing for: those wanting a full exposition on the subject; those wanting a good overview; and those wanting an at-a-glance list of key facts, perhaps only seeking one of those. That there is a demand for those three rough categories is demonstrable. It is a straw man to suggest that problems would arise if the number of groups were increased, as there is absolutely no demand for further categories, nor have you suggested what others may exist. Many topics as well as biographies are complex, but the skill of writing an infobox is in distilling what is known into a label and value, as well as anticipating what information readers may wish to find quickly. If someone hears of Tony Hancock for the first time, why shouldn't they be able to find out immediately that he was an actor who was born in Hall Green, Birmingham, but died from suicide in Sydney, Australia, aged just 44 years old? That might be enough to pique an interest in finding out more, but even if it didn't, they would at least have far more than the first sentence provides. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree with you there, RexxS. And looking at the Stanley Kubrick article, I found the infobox version preferable. Stranger is the absence of recognisable pictures of Kubrick. I looked at the image and didn't recognise him at all. Probably an issue with non-free images, but that is off-topic here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Carcharoth—there is nothing special about nuanced material. An article consists of and a reader benefits from the inclusion of material at all points along a spectrum of nuance. Simple straightforward facts also benefit the reader and such simple straightforward facts are found throughout the body of an article. Therefore you aren't citing a reason that simple straightforward facts should not be found in an Infobox when you say "when nuance is lost, it is lost. The reader won't realise this."[5] Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's best we limit infoboxes to the type of bio articles that's I've suggested, for the reasons I've given. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose even if many articles don't have infoboxes because of very few contributors that dislike them, a blanket rule is a bad idea. --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

RaphaelQS—I actually agree with you about blanket rules being a bad idea. This might be one of the only times I am arguing for something like a blanket rule. I think the Infobox can be added late in an article's development. But I fail to see the argument for omitting an Infobox from a well-developed article. Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"Fail to see" or "refuse to see". I think they amount to the same thing as far as you're concerned. Cassianto ^Talk 19:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I could also fail to see, Cassianto, because you fail to articulate one or more reasons for opposing Infoboxes in biographies. You have presented the argument that the Infoboxes are unsightly. And you have presented the arguments that the information found in the Infobox can also be found in the article. I don't find those two general arguments particularly persuasive. I don't find an Infobox unsightly and the duplication of information is intentional. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I've given plenty of reasons, Bus Stop, but you are too stupid and too selfish to understand the views of others. Cassianto ^Talk 20:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

So far your reasons seem to be based on appearance—that the Infoboxes are unsightly, and repetition—that the info found in the Infobox can be easily found in the article proper. I disagree with the first reason. The second reason ignores the fact that the two alternative means of conveying information are supposed to be duplicative. Bus stop (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Although they are often useful, infoboxes should not be required on any biography. I think they are especially redundant and often unwieldy in stub-class articles. I don't think it's unreasonably burdensome for readers to read a couple sentences. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Animalparty—that is a reasonable comment. I can't help but agree with it. But what about the numerous lengthy articles for which many editors argue there is a case for omitting an Infobox? Does that make sense to you? Is there a case to be made that sometimes lengthy articles should omit Infoboxes? Under what conditions would an Infobox be undesirable in a lengthy and well-developed article? Bus stop (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Strongest Possible Oppose If this goes ahead (and don't think it will per WP:SNOW), all articles under the banner of WP:COMPOSERS will have to be excluded per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC and earlier discussions. Other Wikiprojects will then also RfC this as authoritarian and against the spirit of Wikipedia and request exclusions for the articles under their banner... Most importantly, as agreed on in that RfC, we should have the right to chose whether or not an infobox is appropriate for a particular article on a case-by-case basis. The RfC also concluded that composer articles generally don't need them, hence the Composers Wikiproject decided to minimise their use and even created {{Infobox classical composer}} with a minimal set of fields to avoid all the dross they objected to being added in willy-nilly where an infobox is used. (I participated in that ~~war~~ RfC as User:Jubileeclipman, BTW, which persona is now blocked as I've forgotten the log in details.) So to sum up: BAD IDEA — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Add: A well-crafted lead should achieve all that an infobox might achieve, anyway, so infoboxes often become redundant, especially on the articles that will forever remain short (simply because they need no more information than is already present to describe the person and their life and work) — Iadmc ♫^talk 21:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  - Really? Perhaps you could explain how a "well written lede" can emit machine-readable data about the subject? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC is not cast in stone, and is subject to being overridden by a more recent consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  - As well as WP:CONLEVEL. --Izno (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    - @Izno: Fair enough, WP:CONLEVEL does apply here... `— Iadmc ♫^talk 13:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    - @Pigsonthewing: I don't know enough about "machine-readable data" to answer your question. Any pointers to pages about it? And, yes: WP:CCC. I just don't think it will in this case as the status quo seems to be the preferred option i.e. case-by-case and with consensus on each article. That seems to be the best option to me also, regardless of lead vs infobox debates — Iadmc ♫^talk 13:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
      - Ah. Perhaps you mean Wikipedia:Wikidata? OK: as I said, it's better to work on a case-by-case basis with consensus on each article. If a Wikidatum or two is needed then presumably the article will be well developed and an infobox may well be useful. Also, Wikidata can be added to the body if I read the page correctly. Any other "machine-readable data" I should know about? — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
        @Iadmc:Yes: (1) Microformats and (2) key-value pairs which are provided by any well-designed infobox. If you've an hour to spare you could check out this Google Tech Talk entitled "Intelligence in Wikipedia" for a detailed exposition of how Google uses the structure of our infoboxes to train its natural language parsers. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
        @RexxS: Yes, thanks. I'll check those links out. But I still oppose an imposed block addition of anything to articles (beyond those required by the core policies) — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
        @Iadmc: The value of an infobox to an article is too complex an assessment to make for anyone to say that all articles (or all articles on a given topic) must have or must not have an infobox. It's best being decided on each article. But you need to be more flexible about limiting article additions to 'core policies'. None of the following are mandated by core policy, but you probably would support require adding them: the lead section; sections and headings, categories, inline citations, and so on. --RexxS (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS:I've been thinking about that since I saw your post. No, actually, I wouldn't. While all material must be verifiable, presented in a neutral manner and based on other people's work about the subject—because we are writing an encyclopedia not a text book, research paper, etc.—anything else should be flexible. There may be rare occasions when a lead/section structure doesn't work for an article, for example, WP:IAR notwithstanding. All these other things (including infoboxes) are essentially cosmetic, aesthetic or organisational considerations; WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are non-negotiable — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Then let me give you an example of where WP:NOR is negotiable. It is very common for graphic artists to synthesise multiple sources into an image that no single source has previously published - see c:Human body diagrams for an series of examples, or an image that I made myself File:Breathing Resistance.svg to illustrate a point in an article. I think you'll find that there are fewer exceptions to an article being required to have headings than to NOR. You just can't write prescriptive opposes based on a formula because exceptions will always occur. --RexxS (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

? Those are images not articles. NOR always applies in an article's text. Anyway, my point was simply that it is generally a bad idea to make the rules inflexible to the point of proscribing all valid ways of presenting the material bar one. In this case, all bios with verifiable name, dob, etc., as set out in the proposal, must have an infobox; the alternative (no infobox) is proscribed. That is prescriptive. My choice (and that most commonly called for, at present) is not only the status quo but also the most non-prescriptive (and non-proscriptive) option: let editors choose case-by-case with consensus. It's also your choice, apparently, so I've no idea why you're arguing with me—unless you're just practising your debating skills? — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. I thought we'd settled this. Per opposers. Opus33 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Support with a few exceptions, namely for stubs or new articles and for people (such as Mozart) where considerable consensus has been demonstrated not to include one for whatever reason. MB298 (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)