Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-11/WikiProject report

Discuss this story

It's always bothered me that musicians don't get spouses. Glad to see there's some movement to change that! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 07:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A participant in local transport articles, I love the route map. "Not to scale" indeed. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata seems like it will revolutionize the need and purpose of infoboxes in the near future. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I love your OCLC number! Jane (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another use of infoboxes is that bots such as LyricsBot can use them to confirm salient attributes of articles in order to perform tasks upon those articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy/Pigsonthewing,

There are cases where an infobox has been rejected as being an eyesore or distraction for human readers. What advantage does an infobox have over a (properly implemented, perhaps improved) hidden record (like PersonData)?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "eyesore" implies a personal aesthetic preference rather than a substantive argument. The only scientific study I've seen shows that people do indeed look at infoboxes; but seems to suggest that's an aid to their understanding, not a "distraction". I address the deficiencies of the of persondata model as an alternative for metadata in infoboxes in this essay, which is still in draft, but nearing completion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes like {{Infobox Regular tuning}} are helpful in some articles.

Other infoboxes distract readers from the prose in other articles, particularly their ledes: See {{Infobox economist}}.

Many of your concerns actually suggest improving PersonData. Your argument that editors fail to update PersonData is more substantive; nonetheless, BLPs could easily generate a reminder to editors to update the PersonData fields.

Increasing the value of Wikipedia for Google and other corporations is not high on the list of priorities for many editors, particularly those who do not consult on the exploitation of WP's microformats. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we could improve Persondata. We could make it more granular, just like our infobox metadata. We could align it with international standards for metadata exchange (vCard for people and organisations, for example; iCalendar for events), just like our infobox metadata. We could make it visible, to overcome the hidden metadata problem, and then we could style it to appear at a position supported by the Wikipedia community - top right on the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chemboxes are useful, but they have one glaring annoyance: they can become obnoxiously wide (see Melanotan II or Solanine for an example). This has been the case for years, and sometimes discussed but never resolved appropriately at Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox (for example, Line wrap problem for long chemical formulas). Mind matrix 16:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the examples you give appear unduly wide (and no wider than many other infoboxes) on my screen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have a 23-inch monitor. With my browser maximized to full screen, the infobox stretches the entirety of the browser. I've uploaded File:Chembox width sample.jpg to demonstrate the issue. Mind matrix 20:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it's a screen issue. Those boxes are pleasant on my big computer but less pleasant on my new 10 inch (25 cm) tablet and I bet they're yes, downright obnoxious on a seven inch (17 cm) screen. Since sales growth rates nowadays are higher for small portable screens than large ones that sit on a desk, Wikipedia should try to cater to readers using them. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does; it has a mobile interface, and an app. That said, the examples given are no larger than other infoboxes, viewed in the non-mobile web version on the 4.3-inch screen of my HTC Desire HD. I use a 10" netbook as my primary device, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]