Talk:Infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A template has been placed atop the page stating that the article may lend undue weight to the usage of infoboxes on Wikipedia. Is this a correct assessment, Yes or No? Participants are encouraged to justify their choice. -The Gnome (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes -- with sentences like "An infobox may be used to improve the appearance of an article on Wikipedia". Some would disagree. Some think that certain infoboxes are an abomination. No where does it say infoboxes on Wikipedia are optional. Cassianto^Talk 20:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I've changed that sentence to say that they are used to summarize information. No where does it say infoboxes on Wikipedia are optional. The article says that they may be used, not that they must be used. I don't see any implication that they are mandatory. Anne drew (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe It's not clear what The Gnome is concerned about. Infobox is a generic term yet this article focuses exclusively on its use in Wikipedia. If that is Gnome's point, then I agree--the article should broaden its content or clearly state that it is specific/applicable only to its use in Wikipedia. If it's meant to apply only to Wikipedia infoboxes, another alternative would be to delete it and rely on Help:Infobox which is honestly a much better and more balanced article on the appropriate use of Infoboxes. Glendoremus (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• The question is ill-framed and misses the point of the tag. The tag was placed because the concept of the IB is much wider than this article shows: as it stands the article focuses way too heavily on WP and not the other uses. It is a side point—but an important one—that the article lends undue weight to the use of IBs on WP, ignoring the inherent drawbacks. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, though fortunately hardly anybody reads it. Both in the sense that it is far too much concerned with Wikipedia, and the sense that one would never guess that infoboxes remain highly controversial here. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe? The Wikipedia section should probably be changed to Wikis so it can include information on other wikis (other Wikimedia projects, Wikia, fandom, etc.) I'm not convinced that the article overly favourable of infoboxes though; it seems quite neutral to me. Anne drew (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes WP:self reference, the article is the epitome of it. cygnis insignis 20:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's more neutral now than it was. It's a shame it's taken an RfC to sort it out. Waste of time. Cassianto^Talk 20:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with that, but I would have more brutal yet hesitant because I think they are a bad idea at wikipedia. If the rfc was not active a couple of editors could sort it out between themselves. cygnis insignis 20:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Greetings, cygnis insignis. Do you see in the article's citations of sources, as they are, any self-references? -The Gnome (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, It is not undue weight, it just fails to provide adequate information on other uses. The information provided about Wikipedia seems to be reasonably detailed and factual, but the article is incomplete. Not the best tag available to make this point. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

So if something fails to provide adequate information on other uses, isn't that a de facto situation of WEIGHT? It also fails to mention the drawbacks of the boxes, so it's not neutral either. - SchroCat (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

If you have WP:reliable sources which speak to the drawbacks of infoboxes, then you are perfectly entitled to add content summarizing the perspectives of those sources. However, what we will not do on this project is remove otherwise WP:Verifiable content reflecting the perspectives of cited reliable sources until such time as you've decided to compose the countervailing views (which are not presumed to exist in sources, until you, the proponent of said content, establish that they do). Requiring that all possible views that exist in the world at large are added at once is (and that none may be included until all are gathered) is not what WP:WEIGHT mandates in any shape or form, and I think you've been on this project long enough that you should know this. That would require that editors on every article on this entire encyclopedia to prove a negative in demonstrating that all views had been accounted for, which would clearly be an untenable standard. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid you have either not read or not understood what I have said. This is NOT about the "drawbacks of infoboxes", or the need to "prove a negative": it is that the article focuses way too heavily on WP and not the other uses; it also provides no background or history to their development etc. As to your strawman of removing text, I'm not sure anyone has suggested that. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

If your aim in placing the tag is not to have content removed, but rather to expand coverage to other aspects of the topic, may I suggest that a more expedient alternate approach to both sides litigating the appropriateness of the tag is to simply add the lacking context? This is mainspace article, not a policy or help page, so the burdens of WP:V and WP:ONUS are on you as the proponent of any such additions, but otherwise you are free to add whatever you think is absent from the coverage of the topic. "If the article focuses way too heavily on WP and not the other uses" and "it also provides no background or history to their development" then add the missing aspects, if you are confident those aspects are represented adequately in WP:Reliable sources. But as a threshold exercise to see if that issue actually goes anywhere/is worth crediting as a reason for the tag, perhaps you could give an example of one or two aspects of the broader topic of infoboxes which are absent, along with reliable sources that you think could be used to source statements in this area.

The question whether or not the relevant omissions involves "drawbacks" or not is immaterial--that came from your wording of the relevant issues, not my own (I'm just (Summoned by bot) here): "It is a side point—but an important one—that the article lends undue weight to the use of IBs on WP, ignoring the inherent drawbacks." (emphasis added) and "It also fails to mention the drawbacks of the boxes, so it's not neutral either." If you think that the drawbacks of infoboxes are a fruitful topic to add, that's fine--so long as you have the sources to support any statements you want to include. If you don't think it's a useful topic to cover here, that's also fine. But if you do want to hold the topic of the drawbacks of infoboxes up as something that is lacking in the articles, thus making them imbalanced/incomplete, then you do need to establish that this is something that is actually discussed in reliable sources discussing infoboxes as a topic. Can you do that? If not, you shouldn't be using that as a justification for the tag in a discussion about it's validity.

As an aside, looking at the tag, I think that some of the disagreement between the two sides here arises out of an unfortunate wording that has resulted from the way the tag syntax operates: you simply (and reasonably) stuck "the usage of infoboxes on Wikipedia" into the field of the undue weight tag. That outputs the following phrase "This article may lend undue weight to the usage of infoboxes on Wikipedia." Now, you probably intended that to mean that this article discusses the topic of wikipedia infoboxes too much, but others have (also reasonably) interpreted that to mean that you are suggesting that this article supports the usage of infoboxes too much, particularly if they are not familiar with the tag and didn't take a close look at the wiki markup. Can I suggest that you reword the input text to "the subject of the use of infoboxes on Wikipedia", so that the input will be "This article may lend undue weight to the subject of the use of infoboxes on Wikipedia." It may help to reduce miscommunication some. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

"you simply (and reasonably) stuck "the usage of infoboxes on Wikipedia" into the field of the undue weight tag", As I've just pointed out below: I am not the one who either added the tag, nor opened the RfC. I suggest you take it up with those who did.

Yes, the non-neutral aspect of the article is an aspect, but it's only an aspect: there are valid criticisms in the sources, but that is just a subset of the information that is mossing from this article. - SchroCat (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the impression from the forgoing discussion that you had added the syntax into the tag: my mistake. As to "valid criticisms in the sources" or "missing information", can you be a little more specific? What are a couple of sources you are aware of that criticize infoboxes or provide context/information that is presently missing from the article and what such criticisms and information would you think appropriate to add to this article, from those sources? Snow ^{let's rap} 14:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Has anyone asked the wikipedian who placed this template(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=900422787) his reasoning? I need to know more. I am pinging him- InvalidOS.Manabimasu (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s because a massive portion of the article was on the use of infoboxes on Wikipedia. Invalid^OS (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

InvalidOS If you don't mind a follow up, can I ask: what other uses of infoboxes did you have in mind (as being important to understanding the topic of infoboxes as a whole) that are absent? Do you mean that the article should cover infoboxes in other Wiki formats (i.e. other Wikimedia projects, Wikias, limited-access enterprise and research software, ect.), or did you mean similar types of information presented in box format that has nothing to do with Wiki platforms? I ask because, just having come here for the RfC, it is unclear to me what aspects the proponents of the tag would like included, and whether they are certain these aspects could be cited to reliable sources even if everyone agrees these subjects should in principle be added. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• No. If some editors feel "infoboxes in Wikipedia are an abomination," then they should be encouraged to proffer that viewpoint in the article, adequately supported. If editors perceive a need to warn the reader that the use of infoboxes is "not mandatory", then, again, they should warn the reader of the real situation. Posting up a template simply throws everything up in the air, to the point of having suggestions for an outright deletion of the whole text. Another place for that, surely. -The Gnome (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Clearly yes the basic fact is it is far to much about infoboxes on wikipedia. I would say the solution is to expand the article to at least list other websites which use infoboxes. The first example of these in print media which comes to mind is D&D Monster Manual which has infoboxes without the border. Later editions like have a nice box. I'm sure there must be many examples which predate this.--Salix alba (talk): 20:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• No, it is not undue weight to talk about the subject of literally all of the sources in the article - I just went through all of them, and based on the sources being used, what we're talking about is a Wikipedia topic rather than something broader of which Wikipedia is one application. To increase coverage of anything other than Wikipedia infoboxes would be the definition of undue weight, unless several additional sources are added about those other uses. In fact, unless additional sources are added, it seems problematic to frame this as something other than a template on Wikipedia, since unless I've missed something in the sources (granted, I just gave them a quick look for context), the assumption otherwise is OR. Weight is based on sourcing, not whether or not Wikipedia editors say there are other aspects to a topic. If you would like better coverage of infoboxes outside of Wikipedia, expand the article with reliable sources you find on those other topics. [summoned by bot] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• As an aside, following from the above, could most of this just be merged into Academic studies about Wikipedia? It seems like a lot of the meat of this topic is the research on what infoboxes have enabled, learning, etc. rather than what their purpose is more generally, which seems rather well covered by projectspace pages. Again, though, all of this is based on the source as it exists in the sources we cite. I've not looked for any additional sources about other aspects of the topic "infobox" myself, and they may well exist. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• No. (Summoned by bot) - Great, the "infobox wars" have gone meta; I'm sure this will end well. Anyway, as per the observations Glendoremus and PeterSouthwood above, this is a question of some aspect of the coverage being lacking while others are present in the article, not the content that is present being misrepresentative of its coverage in sources. Schrocat asks of Peter: "So if something fails to provide adequate information on other uses, isn't that a de facto situation of WEIGHT?", and I'll answer that inquiry: clearly not, under even the most basic reading of the relevant policies: WP:WEIGHT (and WP:NPOV broadly) do not require us to include information in the article only once all possible information available in the world has already been gathered so that the content can be summarized together. That would clearly be untenable for this project, wherein articles start from coverage of certain aspects of a topic and then other aspects are added in an iterative fashion; there is no requirement that any article start out representing what a given editor, in their own idiosyncratic interpretation, views as the "complete picture". That holistic view should be the constant target of work on the article, but keeping relevant content out until other editors can composite their own content as a counter-argument on some aspect of the topic they feel passionate about is clearly not our process on this project. If SchroCat, or any other editor, feels that there is information that could be added that would make this article feel more complete and balanced, they should simply add it, in proportion to it's coverage in the sources, subject to the caveat of Rhododendrites' very relevant observation that these sources must meet WP:RS standards on not be a re-hashing of internal Wikipedia debate alone.

Rhododendrites also presents perhaps the most salient point raised in the discussion thus far: are we certain that the broader topic of this article (the idea that the label "infoboxes" is commonly used to describe other types of labels in other contexts) is not WP:Original research altogether? Obviously, I can see the practical similarities between what Wiki-based project editors call an infobox and similar labels that have existed in texts, on products, in invoicing and logistics, and in other contexts going back until well before the modern era. But is "infobox" really a common name that scholarship or other relevant sources use to define this phenomena as whole? If not, that aspect of the article is OR and should be removed, at which point, we would be left with another decision to make: whether to let this article stand on its own as a coverage of Wiki infoboxes. Now obviously, some topics relating to Wikipedia have more than enough coverage to constitute an independent article, and that does not constitute naval gazing. Beyond that, en.Wikipedia is not the only Wiki in existence--indeed, Wikimedia projects as a whole are only a part of that technological ecology today, with the rise of wikias and numerous enterprise and research applications for wikis, pretty much all of which provide support for infoboxes. So I'd say the WP:Notability of the topic is likely to be unassailable when we look in depth at the sources and this article has place, standing as a discussion of infoboxes as an encyclopedic subject, independent of our policy pages that discuss how they are to to be used on this particular project.

Now, in that light, this article does not need the template being discussed: because editors on this project should not be looking to mainspace articles for editing guidance, as would be obvious to anyone who has been here more than a few weeks. However, for that rare new editor who might be confused about that point, we could place a notice at the top of the page (more robust than the current selfref template, which highlights the distinction and points new editors looking for editorial guidance on infoboxes to Help:Infobox, while making clear that this article is about the abstract concept of infoboxes and their various applications in the world at large. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

"the "infobox wars" have gone meta. No they haven't and please try to remember AGF. You and others have clearly missed the point here, and read "infoboxes ... problems", and leapt to a position (yes, I've ignored AGF with that, as you've come up with a complaint that we're "re-hashing of internal Wikipedia debate", I'm happy that you've demonstrated that point) This RfC is nothing to do with the tritely named "infobox wars". As I've said above, this article contains no information about the history and development of infoboxes, where they came from etc (and, yes, there is some valid criticism in the RS, but this thread is not just about that). There is information about the non-Wiki use and history of IBs within reliable sources, and this should be included in the article, or it will remain in such a parlous state - lacking all context and focussing to heavily on WP. I could BEBOLD, but I don't want to (or, indeed, have to), but that does not negate the fact that the article is lacking, and, until it is put right, the tag at the top of the page is an apt one. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've just addressed these points where you first raise them above, rather than answering you in both spots. I will add only one important point here: it is true that you are not required to fix (or even be willing to ever fix) deficiencies in an article before placing the tag. However, if challenged on the tag, if you are going to continue to argue for its validity, and you are not driving for a removal of content so much as looking to add counterbalancing content (as you assert above) you should at least be able to provide a cognizable argument as to what the missing elements are that you would like to see added and give some support for the notion that these positions are not mere WP:original research but actually exist in the reliable sources that discuss the topic. And I'm not saying that you are incapable of making such a case, only that you have not presented those concrete arguments and made a threshold case for the existence of those perspectives in sources. Again, you're not required to do the work to bring the article to where you think it needs to be, but if you want to insist on the tag being necessary, appropriate, and for the betterment of the article, there is an attendant responsibility to show that there is some meat to your position. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

1. I'm not the one that initially left the tag (I replaced it after it was inappropriately removed); 2. The presence of the tag does not mean that I have to add anything. I have already given details of what is missing, and done a fairly quick search of some potential sources, that show there is information that is absent. If you don't want to look for the sources yourself, your comments are moot. - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, you didn't add the tag. But you are arguing rather strongly that it should stay. And that argument holds no water if you can't provide at least some specificity as to what is missing from the article that justifies the tag and some support for the notion that these missing elements are something that are actually covered by WP:reliable sources (and thus could actually pass muster under WP:V and be added to the article) and not just WP:original research. This isn't about any requirement anyone wants to place upon you as to do the work of improving the article; rather its about you meeting a certain persuasive burden if you want your argument to be credited as reasonable and valid and to be taken seriously.

Additionally, I can't do a search to confirm/disaffirm that appropriate sources exist, because you really haven't been particularly clear about what additional aspects of infoboxes you think are missing but necessary to make the article complete: you simply keep asserting that the article is "not neutral" or "missing topics other than infoboxes as they are used on Wikipedia". What topics about infoboxes as they are used outside of Wikipedia are missing? What aspects of coverage of infoboxes are missing that would make the article more neutral? Which sources would we start with to add those elements? If you found sources out there that address your concerns about the shortcomings of the article, why would you not share them with us? Snow ^{let's rap} 14:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

(several) (edit conflict) "What topics about infoboxes as they are used of Wikipedia are missing?" You are still missing what I am saying - maybe I have not been clear enough: this article should be about infoboxes, broadly construed. At the moment it is about infoboxes on Wikipedia. My point (and that of the person who originally placed the tag) is that IBs are a wider concept than just on WP. The article needs to take a wider scope than infoboxes only on WP.

Go to JSTOR and Taylor & Francis and you'll find extra information (not to mention Google Books) - I have neither the will nor the inclination to work on this article. The information is there, and a quick search will show there is a fair amount of it available. - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I still don't feel that you are providing anything that is remotely specific or concrete as to what is missing from the article, given you felt confident enough to re-add the tag. You keep making an extremely vague hand-waving comment about how "this is a broader topic", but without actually naming so much as a single non-Wikipedia application of an infobox that needs to be discussed here. In my opinion, if you revert another editor's action to preserve a tag, you ought to be prepared to provide a substantive argument as to what needs to be addressed before you'd agree to the removal of that tag. I don't feel you've done that beyond ambiguously implying there's "other stuff that isn't X" that needs to be discussed--whereas what I'm seeking, as respondent to this RfC, is an affirmative statement that "specifically, Y is missing" without a negative reference to X. But I suspect further discussion on the topic will only lead to redundancies on our last few posts, so I'm happy to leave it at that and see what further perspectives arise from the notices. Best wishes on your day/evening. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. I've given an outline of the areas that are missing, but if you are unwilling to search in the datastreams I've identified, then that's OK for you to give a vague hand-waving comment to try and dismiss anyone's valid concerns. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid our definitions of "an outline" must be divergent. I've only seen you say (repeatedly) that there are infobox topics (covered in sources) which do not pertain to uses on Wikipedia and/or which help present them in a much more neutral light. But beyond that, I still have not seen the slightest indication as to what those subject matters might be or what sources cover them. And again, I think the onus is on you to be at least somewhat more specific if you are going to re-add the tag and advocate forcefully for its continued presence. It's not that I don't believe that such topics exist, but if someone is going to address your concerns about the tag such that they can remove it without your objection, they would need to know, specifically, what topics you feel are missing that are WP:DUE for inclusion here. Saying "go to JSTOR" doesn't help anyone. I'm quite capable of conducting professional level research into a topic if I know what I want to find (and I don't need to be directed to common search engines, thanks) but you haven't provided us with a threshold topic to do any searches on. But as I predicted, this is just a skipping record at this point, so signing off. Snow ^{let's rap} 16:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: To answer your question, things like the image at the top of the article. Invalid^OS (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• No. Issues of due weight should be resolved by adding information, not removing it. Benjamin (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe: I just took a look on Google Books, and almost every reference in a published work to the term "infobox" is about Wikipedia. The ones which are not about Wikipedia don't refer to lists of key-value pairs as in the article, but chunks of text separated from the main narrative, either in the context of DTP or simply in the captions of the infoboxes in the books themselves. So in summary, the term "infobox" is currently mainly used in the context of Wikipedia, but a discussion of infoboxes in the context of page layout would probably improve the article. Also, having a template at the top of a page pointing out a possible improvement is not a big deal. --Slashme (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)