Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes/Archive 5

Signatures in person-related infoboxes

Has there been any discussion before as to whether signatures are generally desirable in person-related infoboxes, such as {{Infobox actor}}, {{Infobox musician}} and {{Infobox sportsperson}}? {{Infobox writer}} has a parameter for it. I recently came across a sportsman's signature and was wondering if it was a good idea to insert it into the infobox in his article. I realize that it may raise privacy issues. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on whether to include infoboxes in articles on classical musicians and composers

The question of whether to include infoboxes in articles on classical musicians and composers has been festering for over three years now. A very fair statement of the situation has just been put together at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#A new perspective, in the hope of wider discussion. I'd encourage as many people as possible to give it an open-minded review and post constructive comments there. This is an ongoing issue that needs to be properly resolved, through a widely-participated review. Please come and give your thoughts on the statement linked. Happy‑melon 16:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have proposed that the RfC be closed. Please continue to voice your opinion at the straw poll, also, as that must be the barometer for consensus. After that we can consider the full implications, deal accordingly and move on. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Proposal rejected by admin and discussion moved off Composers project talk page. New link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC --Jubilee♫clipman 18:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unknown parameters

I'm asking about a situation in which the infobox on a figure in ancient history had 'unknown' against burial place. This was removed on the grounds that unknown parameters are not filled. Which makes sense a lot of the time, but in this case, where we don't know where this historic figure (Shapur II was buried, it's useful to specify unknown. It's in a sense positive information. Am I talking nonsense? Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not. There's a difference between "we haven't yet found that information"; and "that information is lost to history". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. However, "unknown" is ambiguous as it could mean either of those two. "Undiscovered" or "Lost" (respectively) might be better --Jubilee♫clipman 11:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolving disputes

Does anyone have any advice, for resolving disputes on article talk pages, where there is opposition from a small number of vociferous editors, who have a dislike for infoboxes, based on what appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the belief that infoboxes are "inappropriate for articles about [subject X]", "mar the layout of the article", "lead to oversimplification" or that they "make the article hard to edit"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

hrm... Off the top of my head?

• "inappropriate for articles about [subject X]" - Look at the article an like articles. There are some cases where existing 'boxes won't fit/work and you are looking at a very minimal number of, or singular, articles. In that case the naysayers maybe right - creating a template for one or an exceedingly limited, highly specialized situation isn't needed. If, however, there is an existing 'box that does work, "inappropriate" is an inappropriate argument. If it's a large group of articles for which a reasonable 'box could be created, then it may be a case of taking it to the Project/group that works on those articles and seeking a larger consensus.
• "mar the layout of the article" - It may be a case that the article needs to be looked at for why aesthetic decisions were made that make the 'box a problem. Some may be valid - I've seen a few cases of navboxes used in place of an infobox which would make placement an issue - in others, there may be other clean up issues to address. Bottom line though is asking which is more important - the aesthetics of a few or the utility of the article for the general readership.
• "lead to oversimplification" - Well... the 'box is supposed to be a simple nutshell of the article, about a step or two below the Lead in most cases. It shouldn't define or limit what is in the article, but it should cover what is there.
• "make the article hard to edit" - I really can't see this... the only place it may be an issue is in editing the Lead. But that's just scrolling down to the end of the 'box code.

Out of curiosity... which article set are you running into this with?

- J Greb (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wild stab in the dark... any classical music article? ... (note the irony in my former statement...)--Jubilee♫clipman 02:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Me thinks the long and the short of it is going to come down to looking at the Projects and work-groups on the article(s) talk page(s) and asking there if there is a Project or WG level consensus on using the 'boxes. IIUC, you don't get to use "smaller" consensus to over rule large - article talk don't trump WG which doesn't trump Project and so on. The thing to keep in mind though is that this project can't for inclusion of a 'box if the the involved Projects and WGs hold "It would be nice, but it boils down to the editors primarily maintaining the article(s)." - J Greb (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox song and Infobox single - proposed merger

I'd again like to propose the merger of {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}} (see past discussion). The templates are often used interchangeably, and this is long overdue. Please discuss at (arbitrary choice) Template talk:Infobox single#Infoboxen Song + Single: merge redux. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

URLs in infoboxes

A good many infoboxes include a URL parameter. I contend that the URL is a piece of data and should be visible (at least in a usable abbreviated form), thus:

[http://www.example.com example.com]

and not merely (as is sometimes seen, and even occasionally hard-coded by the infobox) obfuscated as:

[http://www.example.com Official website]

This has the added advantages of being visible to the user; and being capable of being wrapped in an HTML class of url and thus included in any emitted microformat. What needs to be done to make this the common standard? Would anyone like to work with me on this? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just want to check something here, but aren't most of the [http://www.example.com Official website] set up so that the url sans http:// can be entered? Wouldn't the change necessitate fundamental re-working of the articles as well as the 'boxes? = J Greb (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; we'll need to check, but even if that is so, it shouldn't stop us from proceeding; we'll just need to make sure that it's taken into account (and fixed by a BOT, if necessary). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please join discussion of this idea at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#URLs in infoboxes]]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hiding infoboxes

Some people object to seeing infoboxes; we should offer them the following advice:

To avoid seeing infoboxes, add this to your monobook.css:

.infobox { display: none }

But where? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe WP:DISINFOBOX or WP:OUTBOX? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Plurals

Is there either advice, or a fix, for situations where fields might have single or multiple values? For example, in {{infobox country}}, the field "|official_languages=" creates the heading "Official language(s)". Some editors feel this "X(s)" construction is awkward. Is there either an advisable way to make these headings more exact (singular when single, plural when multiple), or is there MOS advice on how the headings should be written (ie. should we use "Official language" there instead, with the plural being implied when necessary, as the other fields seem to do, eg "Time zone")? Or other? The specific context that led me here, is concerning "Historical era(s)" in the draft infobox being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

hrm... 2 or three options that I can see:

1. A flag for each parameter allowing it to be set to "singular" or "plural", which ever is the non-default
2. Splitting the parameter into numbered cases. So if only "official_language" is present, the 'box returns "Official language". If "official_language2" or "official_language+" is also present, it returns "Official languages".
3. Hash out at the relevant Project/Work group level which case is the more likely default and live with the 'box returning that.

Personally, I'd go with a combination of 1 and 3 as there is less coding involved even though the switch fields may be less intuitive.

- J Greb (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with images in an infobox

Hello! I have created the Template:Infobox peerage title yesterday but I haven't been able to fix the image problem. If you go to that page or to any page that links to the template (such as Earl of Wessex), you will notice what's wrong. I really need help with it! Surtsicna (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My advice to you is to rewrite the template properly using template:infobox as a base. it's much easier, and you'll avoid problems such as this. I don't have the time right now to peer through hand-written code. --Ludwigs2 22:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

domesticpartner

I tried to change the Infobox for Tony Kushner to list Mark Harris as Kushner's domestic partner instead of spouse. I used the keyword "domesticpartner," but it wouldn't take. Am I doing something wrong, or is this a bug? I tried to find Help on this issue, but, at least for me, Wikipedia is like a maze, and I couldn't find any.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No one responded, so I changed the Infobox to actor, which recognizes the domesticpartner field, instead of playwright.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted you; if you compare the articles before and after your change, a lot of key information was lost. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for noticing. What about my initial question, though? Harris is not Kushner's spouse. If there's no simple solution to that problem, should I just blank out the spouse field?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Either that, or just live with the label "spouse". There's no right or wrong answer. Perhaps discuss on the article's talk page? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the infobox playwright Infoxbox, and it has a field called partner. Don't know if it was intended for domestic partners, but I decided it was more accurate than spouse (which is absolutely inaccurate legally), so I changed spouse to partner. If I were braver, I would edit the infox template itself, but I assume that would cause a global change to all articles that use the template, and I don't feel confident enough to risk the possible chaos if I screw up.

As an aside, there's a funny field in the playwright Infobox called "ploys." In the discussion page, way back in December of 2008, someone asked, understandably, if that shouldn't be plays. No one responded. Heh.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

RSS and Atom field removal

Hi. There's a proposal at Wikipedia talk:External links#Proposal to remove the RSS and Atom fields from infoboxes, that involves three infobox templates. Rationale and prior discussion is at that thread. Your input would be welcome and appreciated. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Center

How can I center an infobox? Cheers; Felipe Menegaz 02:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

bodystyle="float: none; clear: both; margin: auto" might work. Why do you need this? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Maps in infobox

Please see discussion regarding maps in all building infoboxes at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Maps in infoboxes --Torsodog^Talk 21:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Announcement: Unbulleted list template

The template {{Unbulleted list}} is now available for use in infoboxes; it takes up to nine items. For example, see these changes Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

URLs in infoboxes redux

I propose that we add a paragraph to the MoS, stipulating that the subject's URL, if included, be shown as, say, [http://example.com example.com] (rendering as example.com) and not [http://example.com Official website] (rendering as Official website). This will achieve three things:

• Display key information (the Infobox's purpose) and not merely a link
• Make the URL accessible to people seeing a printed copy of the page
• Enable the URL to be included in any emitted microformat

Please join discussion of this proposal, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#URLs in infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Where do I request an infobox?

I want to get a new type of infobox started for firearm scopes. Could someone help me with this? Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms would probably be your best bet. If you've already posted your request there it's just a matter of waiting until a project member with enough free time gets around to your request. Or you could just follow the instructions at Help:Infobox and try to figure it out on your own, It's not really that hard. -- œ^™ 23:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• The original poster sounds like he or she requires more "hands on" guidance, making Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed#Subpaged proposals by far his or her best option.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahh I was unaware this page existed.. thanks for that, it looks very useful indeed. -- œ^™ 00:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Issue with biographical infoboxes

Please note this issue with biographical infoboxes and comment at that page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Microformats

FYI there's an RfC currently happening here that may be of interest. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Standardization

Hello. I propose {{Infobox Warsaw}} be merged to {{Infobox Settlement}}. It seems it is largely redundant. - Darwinek (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Its for a slightly different purpose, in that its for parts of a city. As opposed to being for a whole city. Settlement could probably be adapted though. -DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Also ugly {{Infobox Polish politician}} seems to me largely redundant. - Darwinek (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Name field - text only?

There's currently a dispute at iPad over the use of the name field to contain a wordmark. I'm of the opinion that the name field should never contain anything but plain text, and anything fancier should go in the logo field. Is there any particular reason this shouldn't be the case? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems the majority of people commenting there now have no issue with it going in the logo field. I believe the earlier dispute was done in edit summaries only? –xeno^talk 20:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The earlier dispute was about the size/prominence of the wordmark as it was used in the logo field. Another dispute that I was involved in could arguably be characterized as having "been done in edit summaries only", to a certain point. While I find putting a wordmark the company itself does not seem to refer to as a logo in the logo field somewhat odd,
I find inclusion of a wordmark or logo in the name field wholly incorrect, and particularly out of place as compared to infobox use to date. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. In any case, Wikipedia had the same wordmark issue until fairly recently, so it's not just a problem with iPad.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There was an attempt at discussion on the talkpage of the article and on Reisio's talkpage, however responses there were met with copycat remarks and ridiculous comments about a dancing astronaut for the NASA article. There was also discussion about the use of a wordmark as a logo on WP:VPP. --Terrillja _talk 20:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not relevant to this particular discussion. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is in response to Xeno. Quite appropriate. Shows past attempts at discussion and how they were responded to. --Terrillja _talk 20:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

xeno's response was not particularly relevant, either (why I responded to him in itty bitty text). Like the section title says, this is about the name field, and whether it should be text only. I presume Sarek brought it here to have this particular issue discussed by/with other people, as all of our opinions are already fairly clear. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm, folks, I'm trying to check consensus on whether or not Name should always be plaintext. Can we leave the logo discussion and personal remarks out of it, please? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I for one believe, simply to preserve semantic markup, that the name field should always be plaintext. riffic (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Need help - an another template is invading my infobox, problem with labels?

I just created this infobox Template:Infobox given name2, and it seems to be working well in articles, but as you can see on the template's actual page, the template:derivative is appearing when it shouldn't. One of the labels I have inside my infobox template is named 'derivative' (label 16). Is there a way to keep that 'derivative' template (template:derivative) from invading mine, without having to change the name of the label in my own template?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, weird. It's gone - it's not showing up any more. I have no idea why.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Collapsible sections

I was wondering if somebdoy could help me. I've been trying to wrap my head around this for a while, but it's just not working; I'm trying to have each of my infobox subheading collapsible... something along the lines of Template:Collapsible list, but I need it to collapse the entire section, with the [Hide]/[Show] button attached to the subheading box, if you catch my drift. Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Template not using English parameter names

I just came across {{Infobox German railway vehicle}} where all parameters have German names. Sure I can appreciate the convenience which this makes importing data from the German Wikipedia, but it turns into a major hassle for editors who are later to update the article. Is this at all appropriate? __meco (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is one of a number of like templates which are a tremendous help when translating or importing articles from other Wikis. In most cases they are permitted whilst this work is ongoing. This particular one is very large and also has features for which en.wiki has no equivalent. The actual parameters mirror those on de.wiki but the template info explains them. There are several options for improving it: make it dual-language; upgrade other templates with the additional features and close it down when its served its purpose; convert it into the main template (since it has many more features); or point it at an equivalent template, as has been done for Template:Infobox Burg. If you have a specific problem with one or two articles, let me know and I may be able to help you out. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You can always wrap the German parameters in new English parameters, if you like. That way both can be used. --Ludwigs2 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as you seem to have a grip on this I'm satisfied. I just wanted to bring it up as I rather balked. __meco (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Need help - hiding unused sections of an infobox

Here's the infobox -> Template:Infobox given name2. Here it is in action -> Gráinne (given name). See how the "Origin" header is showing up, even though all the four parameters in that little section aren't filled in? Can someone fix this, and have the template hide the sections if all their parameters aren't filled in? So if languageorigin, origin, derivation, meaning aren't used then the "Origin" header doesn't show up. And if variant, shortform, petname, cognate, anglicisation, derivative, seealso aren't used, then the "Other names" header doesn't show up?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Woo! I finally figured it out by following this as an example: Template:Infobox#Making fields optional.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about Company Infoboxes

I have a question about what type of info goes into the Company Infobox. Is this the right place to ask, or is there another page I should go to?

In the Infobox Company template, such as the one used in the Midtown Comics article, what should be placed on the Headquarters line? Should only one location be listed there? Or can/should multiple locations be listed, if the company considers themselves to have more than one headquarters? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The examples in {{Infobox company}}'s docs only list town&country. If that needs to be discussed/changed, then Template talk:Infobox company would probably be the first stop. I think it probably could benefit from discussion.

Also, I generally check FAs & FLs to find examples, eg WP:FA#Business, economics and finance currently includes BAE Systems, in which the "headquarters" field lists only the town&country.

For Midtown Comics, I'd tentatively suggest using that style, and just separate multiple entries with <br> linebreaks. However, that might break some code that uses the {{{location_city}}} code, hence I recommend asking at the template's talkpage. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• From their "contact us" page it appears that those addresses correspond to their three stores, none of which is singled out as the "headquarters". New York, New York is, IMHO, what's called for. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Great Backlog Drive

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes of countries/non-countries

Howdy. If a country has no official language, which language should its infobox heading be written in? GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia. Use English. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot to rename deprecated Infobox person fields

Hello! There is an open bot request for approval by Fti74 to rename the deprecated {{Infobox person}} fields for articles in Category:Infobox person using deprecated parameters (~28k pages). For example, |place_of_birth= to |birth_place=. The BRFA has stalled due to this being arguably "cosmetic" change in nature, yet beneficial to the editors. There is no exact bot or otherwise policy regarding this, and two BAG members have asked for broader input. Please comment whether you feel this is a suitable bot task, so we can gather a rough consensus one or the other way. Thank you. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Mobile phone websites

As technology marches on, many websites have started making versions for PDAs, iPhones, etc. While people are sometimes redirected to the PDA/iPhone version, this doesn't happen with all devices. And in many cases it is very inconvenient to navigate a "regular" website from a mobile device. Also usually "regular" websites do not link to their mobile counterparts.

I think that infoboxes need to have new fields for "mobile/PDA" versions of websites, to make it easier for people with mobile phones and PDAs and people with low bandwidth connections/older computers (most mobile websites can be accessed from a regular computer).

See also the EL noticeboard discussion Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Mobile_phone_editions_of_websites WhisperToMe (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"INFOWATCH" outdated

I think any link "INFOWATCH" is outdated for this page (*or whatever for it is). I propose removing it from this box too: Wikipedia:INFOWATCH. -DePiep (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Help with Infoboxes

Hi, I'm a little confused about using infoboxes, can someone explain how I can create an infobox in an article that will contain certain information? GameSlayerGS (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• See Help:Infobox. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! GameSlayerGS (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Robotics infoboxes

Hi

I was going to start some infoboxes for the Robotics project and thought I would start with the Template:Infobox_robot/doc, it was way too narrow in scope and not of good enough quality for most of the 100 or so pages I was going to use it on, I think that is why it is so little used.

I have already started work on a new version User:Chaosdruid/Infobox_robotics and would like hear peoples comments to see if I am on track for the design phase.

I have used sections for deletion for the different types of robots. For example if an extra-terrestrial one the editor would delete the sections that are not "space" (UAV, AUV, etc.). This allows for different fields relevant to each type to be put into the different sections, denoted by the header fields, from one central type listing. For the 2 examples I have created the "space" one, Spirit, has destination (label5) and type (label6) in the details section and the "UAV" one, Sentry, has type (label5) and mission type (label6). Both these are from the relevant "space" and "UAV" sections. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I'd suggest taking a step back and defining the types of articles that this infobox is going to be used for before getting deeper into the layout of the template itself. Consider, for example, the various sections you list:

• Space: {{Infobox Spacecraft}} is currently widely used for "robotic" probes and so forth. While some modifications would doubtless be necessary to handle landed rather than orbital assets, I'm not convinced that the distinction between the two warrants a separate set of infoboxes. Conversely, would all unmanned spacecraft be considered "robots" and assigned infoboxes accordingly?
• UAV: Would one of the aircraft infoboxes (e.g. {{Infobox aircraft begin}}, etc.) not already be applicable here? Functionally, a UAV is an aircraft, albeit one without a crew; what would be the drawing line between "aircraft" and "robot" here (and do we necessarily need one)? To take this a step further, would an ICBM also be considered a "robotic vehicle" under such a rule?
• AUV/ROV: As with UAVs, what distinguishes these from submarines (other than being unmanned, obviously)? Consider, for example, Nereus, which currently has a ship/submarine infobox; what elements would be provided by a "robot" infobox that are not currently present, and why would the creation of a separate infobox be better than integrating these elements into the existing one?

I think that it would be useful to consider these questions up front rather than going through an extended design phase only to find that we've created something technically impressive but lacking in well-defined purpose. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it's taken me a while to get back here, but I have been thinking about it quite hard! I appreciate what you are saying and you did raise some interesting and thought provoking points!.

Spacecraft - strictly speaking a spacecraft is something designed to travel through space, not something which is designed to roam about on the surface of a panet or moon or asteroid etc. In reality I suppose it would be up to consensus, if there was a better robot template, would they have used the spacecraft one? For an unmanned spacecraft, that would be a problem. Strictly speaking a robot has to be capable of autonomous action. If it was simply a remotely controlled spacecraft, then it would not be a robot. I cannot think of any that would fit this description though, as most are preprogrammed and do not really rely on autonomous actions.

UAV: Most UAVs are aircraft. However that, once again, depends largely on the "aircraft" term, things such as the entomopter and Aeryon Scout have control systems information that may well not be provided for by the aircraft infoboxes. It may be true that the aircraft infobox could be expanded instead though.

Similarly the AUV may have information that is not provided for by the submarine infobox. ROVs are not robots, and would therefore not be covered.

I will keep thinking about these things as the points are well made! Chaosdruid (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Brackets within the link of the "File:"

I try to use this format [[File:someimage|link={{{place}}}}]] by placing a value of the parameter to link to the article, but some of the editors give the value within the infobox in square brackets.

If we add the value as:

[[File:Flag of the United States.svg|20px|link=USA]] =>

is OK, but when we do:

[[File:Flag of the United States.svg|20px|link=[[USA]]]] =>

, we can't link to the article. Is there a possibility to solve this problem?--WlaKom (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Userbox

I can't find a userbox for this project. Is there one? Otherwise, could someone please make one? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here it is:

This user is a participant in
The Infobox Watch.

User:Jay Starz July, 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing/Verifiability

Should information in the Infobox be sourced if it merely repeats material in the article body in which a source appears? Should it be like the Lead in that editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for material if it is controversial and likely to be challenged? Nightscream (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've continued this discussion [Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Sourcing.2FVerifiability here]. Nightscream (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to make an infobox align to the left side instead of the right side?

Is there a way to make an infobox align to the left side instead of the right side?--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox problem

Recently (since yesterday) I've noticed that all infoboxes align to the left instead of the right. Also, the lead section no longer word wraps around the infobox. This leaves a lot of unnecessary white space to the right of the infobox forcing the reader to scroll down past the infobox in order to read the lead section of the article.

Is this a problem with Wikipedia or is this a problem caused by my browser (Firefox 3.6)?Music+mas (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Does this happen for you on all articles or just a few? If it's only a few, there may be a problem with just those articles. All articles look fine to me right now. Sounds like either a browser issue or an internet connection issue. I know when my Wi-Fi signal is kind of shotty, not all of the code executes correctly, and sometimes the infobox shows up on the left side of the page, but usually reloading the page fixes that. Have you tried purging the page or bypassing your cache? [You also may want to think about updating Firefox].--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, bypassing the cache fixed the problem.Music+mas (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox educational trusts scholarships bursaries

Rhodes Scholarship is a page without an infobox.

Is there one? Which would be the best template to use as a base when writing one? Once created where would be the best place to get peer review? --ClemRutter (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not every article needs an infobox. Having said that, you're probably best asking at WT:INFOBOX who specialise in this sort of thing. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Transfered here on Redrose's advice.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with #ifeq

 Done

Hi, I'm trying to suggest improvements to a protected infobox: {{Infobox rugby league biography}}. As explained here, I'm trying to use {{tooltip}} to clarify column headers that use shorthand, and I'm also trying to make the infobox more flexible with regional terminology. You can see a copy of the infobox here and the part I'm altering here.

{{tooltip}} works fine. It's the second bit I'm having trouble with:

{{!}} style="width: 1.5em; text-align: center" {{!}} {{tooltip|'''Pld'''|Played}}
{{!}} style="width: 1.5em; text-align: center" {{!}} {{tooltip|'''T'''|Tries}}
{{!}} style="width: 1.5em; text-align: center" {{!}} {{tooltip|'''G'''|Goals}}
{{!}} style="width: 1.5em; text-align: center" {{!}} {{#ifeq:{{{region|}}}|British|{{tooltip|'''DG'''|Drop goals}}|{{tooltip|'''FG'''|Field goals}}}}
{{!}} style="width: 1.5em; text-align: center" {{!}} {{tooltip|'''P'''|Points}}

I've tried making a British example here using:

|region         = British

The "FG" field, which tooltip elabourates as "Field goal" should now be showing "DG" and "Drop goal" but it isn't. I can only guess that it's treating "British" and "British" as being nonidentical, but.. why? I was hoping someone here might have some ideas? GW(talk) 12:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your page User:Ginger Warrior/Sandbox3 uses an infobox called {{User:Ginger Warrior/Sandbox}}, but the latter does not mention any {{{region|}}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh right... because the first is using the second it needs the field filling like an article would... got it. Thanks for that! :) GW(talk) 14:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem with infobox gridiron football person

Could some kind guru please look at the Slade Cutter article and advise me of how to eliminate the text at the top and bottom of the image in the football infobox? I have no idea where it comes from. It is not in the article. Thank you.JMOprof (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

From Template:Infobox gridiron football person, the image parameter value should be "Image name, without File: namespace nor wiki-markups". -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel - that was quick. Thank you. I'll clean it up right now.JMOprof (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Any Help Will be Appericated to Cut Down Aviation Infoboxes Requests

Hey, I been working to reduce the articles without infoboxes for aviation, already reduced them by 200-300 articles. If anyone wants to help out to reduce them further, please let me know. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Also, I been wondering is it possible to add the aviation section to the current project section on the front page of the infobox project where it also lists the ongoing films' project?

Thanks, Ygolovk (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should we add a spouse field to Infobox musical artist?

There is currently an RfC underway to discuss whether a "spouse" field should be added to Template:Infobox musical artist. Interested editors are invited to voice their opinions at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Should Template:Infobox musical artist include a "spouse" field?. --JN466 17:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting NEW Infobox Ideas

I have some ideas on how Wikipedia can improve the creation and usability of Infoboxes on its website but I'm not sure if the WikiProject Infoboxes page is the correct place to post such ideas or if I should create a new WikiProject. Can anyone help? AnimatedZebra (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, am ok now. AnimatedZebra (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox terrorist attack

What is this "Terrorist attack" infobox? Eg Maxim restaurant suicide bombing

It just appeared recently. It seems to be newly-created, but I can't find out the discussion of where it was created or how it reached consensus.

The trouble with this infobox is that it makes it very easy to violate WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST. It uses the term "Perpetrator", which looks like WP:POV to me.

Is this a proper infobox? Should it be revised? Should it stay at all? --Nbauman (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't need either a discussion or consensus to create infoboxes. It certainly isn't newly-created: the page history shows that it was created 03:43, 13 July 2006 by Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs), so it's been around for over five years. Logs show that the original name was Template:Infobox terrorist attack, but it was moved to Template:Infobox civilian attack 17:39, 22 April 2007 also by Tariqabjotu. If you feel that it should be modified, the discussion page is the place to bring that up; if you feel that it should be deleted, the place to go is WP:TFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Actually, by following your links, I see it was revised to change "belligerent" to "perpetrator" on 6 February 2011, by user BomBom, without any discussion. [1] --Nbauman (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan

Should people associated with Gilbert and Sullivan be exempt from infoboxes because they clutter the article? Is there something innate to people associated with G&S that should exempt them? The RFC is at Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: The Gilbert and Sullivan editors have remained consistent with a much broader practice, which encompasses practically all classical composers and librettists. I've checked several dozen classical composer and librettist biography articles, and I haven't found one yet with an Infobox. A change to this practice would affect a much broader range of articles than just Gilbert & Sullivan. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Coordinates vs Lat Long in infoboxes

I've raised this question on various discussion pages, as I'm not sure which might provoke responses. My question is this: Do we need or want lines in infoboxes that ask for both coordinates and lat/long? Comments welcome. --S. Rich (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where I can see both sides. A |coordinates= parameter allows flexibility, such as peculiar templates like {{gbmapping}}, or the customisation of {{coord}} (such as different scales or regions), without the need to introduce special parameters, as was done on {{Infobox London station}} - see here. However, for the editor not confident with templates such as {{coord}}, permitting the entry of lat/long as simple values is easy to understand. If the infobox has provision for a location map - as with {{Infobox London station}} - then lat/long parameters is definitely preferable to |coordinates=, because they may be passed directly to the location map template to get the red dot, see this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think lines of coordinates in decimal degrees based on {{coord}} is more easer to use the Infobox, because you can get values from very common, Google Earth--WlaKom (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cemetery

The established parameter no longer works, can someone more familiar with the infobox coding take a look, as I didn't see anything. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Works fine for me. See also Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_cemetery--WlaKom (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work, but I have fixed it. A |headern= parameter cannot occupy the same row (n being the row number) as a |labeln=|datan= pair. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Redrose, thanks. WlaKom, I had gone through the first few transclusions, along with the ones another user had pointed out on the infobox's talk page, and none of them were working properly. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? --WlaKom (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Highgate Cemetery
Details
Established	1839

Highgate Cemetery has |established=1839. After my fix, this shows as at right; previously, the "Year established 1839" was omitted from display, because the {{Infobox cemetery}} template was coded to put that information on row 1 - and row 1 is already occupied by the word "Details". What I did was to move "Year established" down to row 2, "Country" down from row 2 to row 3, etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

External links in infobox

Does this project or any of its participants have a position on the inclusion of external links in infoboxes, for example those found at the bottom of Template:Infobox NFL player? Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The question flows from a friendly discussion over JWeiss's decision yesterday to disable several established fields in the football coaching infobox here. Several others (including me) like having those fields active, but JWeiss believes it is inappropriate for an infobox to ever link to a site off Wikipedia. I see no prohibition on such links. The NFL infobox is another example where we include links to a limited number of authoritative off-line resources such as nfl.com for the player's career stats or the Pro Football Hall of Fame for the person's HOF biography. Another example that I've used and found to be helpful is the field in many infoboxes that links to google maps for a geolocation -- that one is included in multiple infoboxes, e.g., Watts Tower. Many infoboxes also include a field for an external link to a person, government agency or company web site, e.g., Arianna Huffington, Detroit and Apple Inc.. Book infoboxes are another example where we routinely include limited, authoritative external links to WorldCat, e.g., Gone with the Wind. I don't see the need for a ban on having limited and helpful links to important external content in infoboxes. Cbl62 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Parameters in articles, not used by infobox

Hello, several articles are containing infobox parameters that not used by the infobox template. See for instance Damien O'Reilly contains weight=12st 8| whereas Template:Infobox GAA player hasn't this parameter. Is there a bot running, to remove all deprecated or never used parameters from articles, to free the articles from confusing waste? --Diwas (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no. Occasionally a WikiProject may decide that the use of invalid parameters in one specific infobox was so prolific that action was needed; see Template talk:Infobox locomotive. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanx for your answer, now I see, it is not as easy I thought. There are parameter names with typos or synonyms. I thought about parameters with informations, that are not choosed by design of infobox, but inserted by an autor into an infobox in an article.

I don't know what would be the way to clean infoboxes.

• Programming infoboxes in a way that they show their errors in specific errorlists?
• Running a bot that adds all articles with Infobox errors to a maintenance category or adds a maintenance message tag to the that articles?
• Let the specific projects do anything or not?

Anyway, I will be lesser confused in the future, if I will see an information in the article source text, not shown by reading the articles infobox. Best regards --Diwas (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's very easy to check if a given parameter (whether valid or invalid) is present, or absent, in a template, and such checks can be built in so that use, or non-use, of that parameter puts the page into a tracking category. We can describe that as "if parameter |a= is present, this is an error" or "if parameter |b= is blank or absent, this is an error". It's more difficult to check for invalid parameters along the lines of "if any parameters other than |x=|y=|z= are present, this is an error". When they are done, such checks are normally on a one-off basis; but if it's noticed that particular invalid uses come up often, a check for that specific invalid parameter might be put into the template. An example is {{cite web}}, where one of the valid parameters is |accessdate= - this is frequently mis-typed as |access-date=, so the template includes code that says, essentially, "if |access-date= is present and is not blank, put the page into Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters". But this won't trap for a slightly different typo like |access date=.

Anyway, what you are asking might be possible as a one-off. Did you have a specific infobox in mind, which you would like to be checked for the use of invalid or misspelled parameters? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess, there may be some deprecated parameters or parameters that are expected by some users. I found weight as not used in Template:Infobox GAA player and as not actually used (deprecated) in Template:Infobox tennis biography. It might be in some other sportspeople infoboxes or some biography infoboxes. I think it would be a good idea to put a check-function into infoboxes for every removed/deprecated parameter and for parameters, that looks very common, like weight and height in biography articles for instance, if that parameters are not part of the specific infobox. - For future changes of infoboxes, a rule would be helpful: If removing a parameter from infobox-code, set an check-function for it. --Diwas (talk) 22:01, 22:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sound playback in info box

Hi there, Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I am a number of editors working on various Scott Joplin related pages. My specific query is this; is there an info box template which has a field that allows a sound file link, which can play the as audio? An editor has added this very thing to the page Magnetic Rag using the generic info box template. Other info boxes are used on other pages, for example Bethena and The Entertainer (rag). Should I change the info boxes used here to the same generic info box as used on the Magnetic Rag page, or is there another one which would do the job better? On the Magnetic Rag page, the field which plays back the sound file is called "data 6". Many thanks. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Infoboxes/Archive 5"
Song

The generic {{infobox}} shouldn't be used directly in articles. For musical tunes (including songs), the proper infobox is normally {{Infobox song}}; and this has a |Misc= parameter (note capital M). You could put, for example, |Misc=<center>[[File:Magnetic_Rag.ogg]]<br />"Magnetic Rag"</center> as at right. If {{Infobox song}} is lacking in some way, you could propose an amendment at Template talk:Infobox song. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll take a look at the template you've suggested. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

After a bit of head-scratching and looking at the talk pages of the templates you suggested, I boldly went and wrote my own. You can find it at {{Infobox Tin Pan Alley}} and it is being used on various pages related to Scott Joplin compositions, eg Magnetic Rag. I did contemplate asking for additions to Infobox song, but decided against it; I was looking for an infobox which would allow (amongst other things) an image and a sound file, with info like publisher and arranger - a mix of Infobox Song and Infobox Single I suppose. I did check the archive of the Infobox Song talkpage and there had been previous discussions about images which didn't look promising. Please feel free to improve the syntax of the template if there is something glaringly obvious that I have done wrong. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

TFD regarding merging {{Infobox Australian road}} with {{Infobox road}}

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 31#Template:Infobox Australian road. --Rschen7754 04:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Geobox

I have proposed that we delete {{geobox}}. That may effect articles curated by this project. You are invited to particiapte in the Geobox deletion dicussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata

The Persondata template has been listed for deletion or modification at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata. As a project that would be affected if the template is deleted or modifed I am leaving this notice. --Kumioko (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Request

I'd figure this would be the best place to ask, as I've asked everywhere else and got almost no feedback. I'm currently expanding TNA 2005 Super X Cup Tournament in a subpage. It is an eight man single elimination tournament and I feel a infobox would be very helpful in the article, however, I can't find any infoboxes regarding tournaments. Could someone direct me to a category, a list, a link, etc just something?--WillC 07:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

{{infobox sport event}} maybe? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that could work. Only something without nation and prize money would be better.--WillC 00:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

They're both optional - you can omit them if not relevant to your tournament.

There are lots of other, more specialised, infoboxes listed at Category:Sports infobox templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll take a look and decide which would be best. I got alot of tournaments to work on soon.--WillC 10:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

summit infobox

How do i request and edit to infobox summit? i want to add a "previous" and even "next" summit like the election one hads. Alhough even the election infobox with its merta tags for parties needs remodelingLihaas (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Make your proposal on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Motel

I notice the article on Motel is templated on its talk page as "needing an infobox". I've been trying to expand this article (it's currently 'start class' 'top priority' along with Hotel and Resort in the travel and tourism wikiproject and the hotels subproject) but am unsure as to why this has been tagged for adding an infobox? The boxes would seem more appropriate for individual items in a series (individual periodic table elements, individual prime ministers, presidents or kings, individual broadcast stations, highways or rail stations) in which the same fields of information appear repeatedly (location, date established, size or other descriptors) and not the overall description page for a class. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Feel free to de-tag it Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Not sure why this has been tagged {{reqinfobox}} since 2010; the user who originally tagged it is long gone and the WP:TRAVEL (WP:Hotel) wikiproject has been inactive/dead for so long that I can't even find someone to assess the article (it was tagged "start", "top" importance in 2010, back when it was 12kb instead of 70kb of text). I'd tried raising the question at the wikiproject months ago, no answer. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox military conflict

In Great stand on the Ugra river the infobox makes a huge white space on the left, at least on my machine. Is there some way to fix this?Benjamin Trovato (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The whitespace is caused by the table of contents, not the infobox. See WP:TOC#Table of contents (TOC). -- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not with the TOC, nor with the infobox. You can demonstrate that it's not the infobox by removing all of the infobox apart from the image - right align that, and the problem remains:

[[Image:Great standing on the Ugra river 2.jpg|250px|right]]

The '''Great Standoff on the [[Ugra River (Oka)|Ugra river]]''' ...

The problem is related to the {{Campaignbox Mongol invasions}} below the infobox, which contains code whose behaviour varies between browsers. In Firefox the page looks fine; but in Internet Explorer, the campaignbox pulls everything after it down to its level. This includes the TOC, and is why a large blank area appears to the left of the infobox.

BTW I see that the article uses level 1 headers (i.e. =Prelude=, =The battle= etc.), which is against the manual of style - these should be level 2 (i.e. ==Prelude==, ==The battle== or deeper). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

incidentally the difference between = and == in not at above but at mos/layout, headings and sections. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of infoboxes on biographical articles

Discussions have arisen, at Talk:Marian_Anderson#Infobox and Talk:Samuel Barber#Infobox, about whether to include infoboxes on those articles, or whether "prior determination" prohibits them. WikiProject Classical music has been canvassed, but other interested projects talk pages were not notified; hence this post. Wider participation would be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Referencing

I had a recent exchange with Sandy that I found quite troubling. She's so concerned with the rampant lack of referencing in infoxes that she now opposes their introduction into articles. It occurs to me that parameters fall into two broad groups. Some, such as the |ISSN= parameter of {{Infobox Journal}}, are essentially self-referencing. More often, though, they need an explicit reference to support verification. It would seem to be a useful improvement if there were to be a standard |sources= parameter in infoboxes allocated to citing general sources that are used for many of the infobox parameters, rather than having to repeatedly cite the same source for each entry. Such a parameter could be displayed at the top or bottom of the infobox. Does this make sense to others? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

{{Infobox locomotive}} (which is non-standard, because it doesn't use {{infobox}}) has a parameter |notes= which is a "text box for infobox footnotes if needed"; I sometimes use this for <ref>...</ref>-style footnotes, see NBR 224 and 420 Classes - it's at the very bottom of the infobox. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that |notes= approach would be fine! It's not primarily a visual issue, so much as one of better enabling editors and readers to verify sourcing. If there's agreement, implementation should probably start with the infoboxes commonly used on BLPs, where poor sourcing is most consequential. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes should repeat information which is cited elsewhere in an article; I think the MoS has something to say on this matter. BTW, Sandy who? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Andy, my error. I should have linked the discussion with user:SandyGeorgia. What on earth would the point of the infobox be, if it only repeats information which is already elsewhere in the article? Pure summary? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see now that someone added that "Purpose" section to wp:Manual of Style/Infoboxes in late 2010, though it remains unclear to me why they would do so. In any case, a style guideline does not trump a core policy. It must be clear to readers how they can verify what they read, without having to find a comparable assertion buried somewhere in a massive article. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)