Should an infobox be added to this article? The last time this was discussed here was 10 years ago (per @TSventon). Dantus21 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (Infobox RfC)

• Oppose (Invited by bot) If it ain't broke don't fix it. An infobox will not add anything, and—thanks to Vector skin 2022 removing the TOC box—will infringe on the "Early years" subsection and push the birthplace image down. ~ HAL333 18:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's hard to support adding an infobox without seeing what the proposed infobox would look like. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Richard Wagner
  Wagner in 1871, by Franz Hanfstaengl
  Born	(1813-05-22)22 May 1813 Leipzig
  Died	13 February 1883(1883-02-13) (aged 69) Venice
  Works	List of compositions
  Signature

  Mock up in the style of Bach and Tchaikovsky --Dantus21 (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support although only if the formatting of the article remains good. The lead could be adjusted to reduce redundancy. Godtres (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An infobox would be an improvement on (and not a drastic change of) the current image and signature box. Godtres (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose — It didn't have one 10 years ago, nothing has changed, it still doesn't need one. The article looks absolutely fantastic without one, and most importantly, it encourages our readers to read. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Making the article harder to parse, even if it "encourages to read" the hard way, isn't the point of Wikipedia. Plus, standards have changed a lot since 10 years ago. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Stop forcing people to read the way you want them to! We aren’t the bosses of our readers! Dronebogus (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I said encourages, not forced. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not broke etc. The suggested one is at least mercifully short, but doesn't tell the reader that Wagner almost exclusively composed opera. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Then add that. It’s that simple. Don’t make up non reasons to oppose. Dronebogus (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, not that simple! Gerda, from my talk page: "Did you know that Wagner was rather keen (later in life) to avoid the term "Opera" for his creations? "Handlung" (action), "Bühnenfestspiel" (stage festival play), "Bühnenweihfestspiel". "compositions" is nicely neutral ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)" Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But it isn't that simple. Many (most?) people have expressed support or opposition to the proposed infobox, not to infoboxes in general. I think this is what we are supposed to be doing. To change the proposal now would moot much of the discussion. Thincat (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Thank you @Dantus21 for providing the mock up. The proposed infobox doesn't really add anything of value to the article; all of that information (and more) either already is (or can be) provided within the first sentence of the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC), edited 22:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Infoboxes aren't meant to provide new information not in the lead - quite the opposite. They're specifically supposed to summarize relevant information already in the article in a consistent way.

  Tserton (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. More out of a general preference for infoboxes, though. But the opposing arguments above are also mostly arguments against infoboxes generally. I think an at-a-glance overview of a topic is super useful in most cases; a lot of people respond well to consistently formatted information. Infoboxes don't encourage laziness, as some people fear; readers who don't come to a page to read the entire lead aren't going to be persuaded to do so just because there's no infobox. --Tserton (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This infobox is very modest and fits in line with the purpose of an infobox. The mock up reflects the recently added infoboxes to Bach and Tchaikovsky. This RfC is valuable just to remove the infobox roadblock and restore article changes to the ordinary BOLD, Revert, Discuss cycle . This has been the case for a few other biographies as well. The link to list of work is helpful when navigating the article and I always look for dates/locations in the infobox and not the lead. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Tserton and others. The image already occupies the infobox position; let's summarise the relevant facts there too. Certes (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Having an infobox is generally more a positive than a negative. Correct the article has not had one in 10 years which is why it looks dated and old. It is of great value to the readers here to have the important quick facts available without having to hunt for them though walls of text. Also as more BLP articles come with and the infobox becomes more standard it can be a jarring inconsistent experience to not have one. Finally Google scrapes info from the infobox to help people obtain search results, which again has value to any learners out there. So if the only argument for not having one is aesthetics and stylistic choices, that is an easy answer. Help our readers or look pretty? I would also support expanding the suggested one, perhaps like Johnbod mentioned, but that is a great start. PackMecEng (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Finally Google scrapes info... seems to obviously not matter here. Google "When was Richard Wagner born" and the search engine replies "May 22, 1813" highlighting the first sentence of this article. What makes you say the infobox (or infoboxes in general) are generally more a positive than negative and of great value to readers, or that an article without one look dated and old and can be a jarring experience? Perhaps there were surveys to this effect I missed when IB disputes were more common (mostly before my time)? Or is this just your aesthetic opinion? Ajpolino (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A study from a few years ago found that although the lead and the infobox contain only 17% and 4% of the links of an article, they receive 32% and 18% of clicks respectively.[1] That seems to suggest that users find the infobox valuable. Nemov (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn’t necessarily show that: that’s one possible interpretation of the data, not any sort of proof. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, that's an interesting article. Skimming it (and possibly misunderstanding) they do some modelling I wouldn't understand and conclude that the click data is explained best by a model where readers select links at random. I don't think they attempt to separate an infobox's "usefulness" from its prominent position. Ajpolino (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (saw the notice at the Village Pump) Support per PackMecEng, Nemov et al. The infobox will be a significant improvement to the article, and as demonstrated at places like Talk:Stanley Holloway#No summary box? that I stumbled across the other day, readers expect biographies to have infoboxes even when they are so uninvolved in wikipolitics that they don't even know what they are called. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Gerda's comment in the prior section and HAL333's just above. Ajpolino (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll add that in this article I think the proposed infobox takes up prime real estate to only add relatively unimportant information (which is why his birthplace, deathplace, and age at death weren't already in the lead). That information can still be found in the article, but there's no reason to highlight it in a special box at the top. I'll also admit to the semi-heretical opinion that on matters of stylistic choice we should defer to the preferences of the article's major contributors (basically MOS:ENGVAR but for all stylistic choices). Ajpolino (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as an infobox adds nothing to the (currently great-looking) article. The sole exceptions are the places of birth and death, which I sincerely doubt are things that readers look for in an infobox. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have looked up this information for multiple people previously (I looked for Harold Holt's age and place of death yesterday for example), and when I do the infobox is the first place I look. When an infobox is present I don't need to look further, when it isn't then I tend to look to see if there is an early life/death section (depending what I'm looking for) and skim-read them if it isn't in the first sentence. If those sections don't exist, or I don't spot it when skim-reading then I tend to look elsewhere than Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your input, Thryduulf. That you responded so quickly with an adecdotal counter proves I'm just one guy with a non-universal perspective. (Still, I think the only examples of people I'd go looking for their place of death would be Howard Hughes or maybe someone who died in the 9/11 attacks.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you'd asked me the day before whose place of death I'd be looking for, Harold Holt would not have been in my top 500 answers. It just happened to come up in a conversation I was having. The article has an infobox so I just scrolled down to the personal details section and found what I wanted in seconds rather than needing to spend a couple of minutes or more extracting information from prose. Thryduulf (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  MOS:FIRSTBIO says the birth & death dates should be in the first sentence, which they nearly always are. The places are normally there or lower in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but that's completely irrelevant because I wasn't looking for their birth and death dates - I was looking for their age at death without needing to do mental arithmetic. Place of death isn't routinely mentioned in any specific place, in Holt's article it's in a sea of blue (no pun intended) in the 5th paragraph of prose. Thryduulf (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently rapid mental arithmetic is supposed to be mandatory for Wikipedia users (sarcasm) Dronebogus (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because there is something seriously wrong here though I can't make out what underlies the situation. The mock up is helpful to avoid having to vote for a pig in a poke. An infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject". The signature is not a key feature, something to be located at a glance, and I'm incredulous that the fact that he wrote operas is not worth mentioning. The presentation was better at the time of promotion to featured article when I suppose the signature was intended to look attractive. Thincat (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Found this discussion through the Village Pump notif and I think the proposed infobox is a clear improvement. It adds a readily apparent link to Wagner's list of compositions; it includes information (like death age and birth/death places) that's frequently sought but would be awkward to fit in the lead prose; it allows us to include Wagner's signature in a nicer-looking way (its current position brushes too close to the image caption for my tastes); and it achieves all this while still being streamlined and free of clutter. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The argument that infoboxes are redundant junk magnets falls utterly flat when this article has a pseudo-infobox with a signature, the most useless information imaginable, prominently placed. A real infobox would actually have useful information even if its actual use would be forcibly limited to about three entries b/c “bloat” Dronebogus (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not what is being proposed. Personally I'd love not to have a signature at the top of this or any other article, but they seem to be considered essential by many. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose fails to "summarise [the] key features of the page's subject". This is because it is unable to do so. Either it is too simplistic or too detailed, either is useless for the reader. The fact that some people want to carry on blindly arguing dully about infoboxes instead of writing articles tells us much as to the state of the 'paedia in the early 21st century. SN54129 07:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that some people want to carry on blindly arguing dully about infoboxes instead of writing articles tells us much as to the state of the 'paedia in the early 21st century. is an interesting thing to say given that your entire argument is about infoboxes rather in general rather than the specific infobox proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And the fact that you have more edits to this section than anyone else, including the nom, is equally indicative. SN54129 10:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's only acceptable to argue about infoboxes if you write articles on Wikipedia. Nemov (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An opinion you have every right to hold, and even enunciate, even if it's total rubbish. Although I suspect you're being facetious or poking at SN in a way too subtle for me to recognize (sometimes a <sarcasm/> tag helps). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also hope that was sarcasm. Just in case it wasn't: it's readers' opinions on infoboxes that matter. Unfortunately, few of them will comment here. Certes (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Certes: cos of the indentation, I assumed Nemov was replying to Thryduulf. Perhaps they could clarify. This would also clarify who it is they think doesn't write articles here :) SN54129 11:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was replying to Nemov, with a point that I think is valid whomever Nemov was replying to. I also write very few articles, but I read plenty and I like to think that I contribute usefully in other ways. Certes (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, you're the one arguing against adding something to the article, so your argument falls a bit flat. (Also, all of Wikipedia's history has been in the early 21st century. It was created in 2001.) Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, Chaotic Enby I've already had to point at your flawed misunderstanding of policy above; I must do so again, I'm afraid. This policy states, emphatically, that the onus for those wishing to add material to an article is on them, no one else. HTH! SN54129 15:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry if it came out that way, but I wasn't pretending the onus was on you on this point. I was saying that arguing against inclusion is, on average, less constructive than writing articles, and that you're not any less "blindly arguing dully about infoboxes" than people wanting to add them. Also, even then, people can do more than one thing: that people argue for (or against) infoboxes doesn't mean they'll spend less time writing articles otherwise. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yo, SchroCat if you could do with a laugh, Chaotic Enby sez I don't don't right nuff artycles ere. "eric idle vox" Sorry bought that squire! SN54129 19:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I apologize if there was any misunderstanding, and am genuinely confused about what is happening. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No apology necessary Chaotic Enby, and sorry if I was brusqe. Confusing?! This whole discussion has turned into a mud bath, I'd say!  :) SN54129 14:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Serial Number 54129 Sorry again. I understand that this shouldn't have happened and will remove myself from the conversation. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The suggested box adds almost nothing to the article, mostly providing the same information from the first line of the lead. I can't see any reason provided in the Supports above that provide a compelling reason to add one (nothing has changed in practice, policy or procedure since the last discussion either). IBs are not "standard" or required on any article: their inclusion should be considered as carefully as any other piece of formatting, or the addition of a new image or additional prose. The long-standing (c. ten year) consensus not to have an IB should need more of an argument to overturn than "they're standard" (they're not) or "I like them". - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An infobox's goal is not to "add new information", but to summarize key points of the lead in an easy-to-parse form, which is exactly what this one is doing. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am very surprised that you (and others) think his signature is a "key point". Am I misunderstanding something? Also, I suppose adding the proposed infobox would involve putting another copy of his signature elsewhere in the article. For me (and I'm very ignorant about him), a (the?) key point is that he was a musical polymath who, in particular, wrote both music and libretti for many revolutionary dramatic operas. I don't think the mock up infobox starts to convey this whereas the lead does. Even if an infobox is a good idea the proposed one seems very poor. Thincat (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The signature is there already there, pointlessly, but of course we can’t remove it because it’s a featured article where everything is there or not there for a precise reason and must be changed with glacial conservatism (sarcasm) Dronebogus (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, didn't mention the signature - and in fact I feel like it's probably the most irrelevant part there, and don't necessarily agree with its inclusion in the infobox. A better infobox could mention the genres he wrote in, his influences and people he influenced. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn’t do influences, that’s actually ill suited to an infobox, but maybe genres. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• support Infoboxes are standard across the Wikipedia, especially in a biography. They summarize info in a concise and easily accessible manner, hit Special:Random and it takes quite awhile to find a page without one. There's no reason to prohibit one other than WP:OWN-like obstinance, and any "if it ain't broke" style argument to oppose should be weighted very lightly in the final analysis of this discussion. Zaathras (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do people automatically go to pointless and unfounded accusations of ownership? Some people have a different opinion to you: it doesn't signify ownership and they shouldn't be the target of your insults just because you disagree with them.

  Funnily enough, I tried clicking on Special:Random six times and the random articles that came up were Human modelling, Cornelius Berenberg, Marsupiocrinus, Evolutionary pressure and Doris Stockton (all without IBs), and Hassan Raza Ghadeeri which does have an IB, so I'm not entirely sure what the point of your argument is there... - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I hit it six times and every single one had an infobox. Go figure. Dronebogus (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Couldn't resist, I hit it four times 1, 2, 3, 4. Just one IB (though two navboxes), and it's a fairly useless one. Go figure. Ajpolino (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I hit it six times and have concluded that Dewey will beat Truman. ~ HAL333 17:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it’s frequently dependent on stub status, which is why it’s weird to see non-stub articles without one unless they’re about very broad topics. Dronebogus (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, dear. Time to roll out yet again my much-praised explanation of which articles should (and do) have infoboxes, and which should not (and don't). Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears that your response is a regurgitation of the same points you previously made, which essentially boil down to personal preference, without addressing the substantive arguments that aim to benefit our readers. Furthermore, it seems to reinforce the very point being discussed, considering the length of time that has passed since you last engaged in this debate. It comes across as repeatedly emphasizing a stance that may no longer be relevant or productive, akin to persistently beating a metaphorical dead horse. In order to advance the discussion and make progress towards serving our readers' interests, it is essential to consider fresh perspectives and explore new avenues for improvement. By doing so, we can ensure that our content remains dynamic, engaging, and responsive to the evolving needs of our audience. PackMecEng (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't pay by the word you know. I've "engaged in this debate" plenty since, & imo it remains both "relevant or productive". Actually, nothing much has changed since 2018. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Johnbod, that’s flat-out condescending. You aren’t in charge of overseeing the “correct” use of infoboxes, and your opinion here is not better than anyone else’s. Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The value of editors' opinions is assessed by other editors. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and your opinions are not good. Dronebogus (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. People learn and absorb information in different ways. Accessibility is important and benefits many people in the long run as in curb cut effect. Infoboxes are a proven way of improving the presentation of information. —siroχo 10:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per SN54129. Does not add value, only brings two pieces of information not usually considered lead-worth to the top (birth and death places). Srnec (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It also adds death age and a link to compositions; more crucially more information could be added. Dronebogus (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Infoboxes are inherently evil. Ghirla^-трёп- 10:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that a joke vote? Because even if it isn’t that’s an argument nobody’s going to take seriously. Dronebogus (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems at least as plausible as Infoboxen are generally a Good Thing. —Srnec (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: adds concise, basic information that is easy to quickly comprehend. Not everyone wants to read the nigh-on-400-word lead. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Infoboxen are generally a Good Thing - especially on biographies. I can see no reason to exclude one for Richard Wagner — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 12:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support They are quite helpful to readers, which is what this site is made for. Although, we should probably add a genre section to the infobox. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Serial Number and Ajpolino; Quicole and Dronebogus also nicely demonstrate that "it can always be expanded" is a problem not a perk. The issue is not just that what's in the proposed template is mostly easily findable; it's more that it doesn't do a good job of giving a precis of the subject "at a glance", that it cannot do so effectively, and that it will get worse in the name of being "useful". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I find Nemov's interpretation of the data to be plausible enough to suggest that an infobox might be useful to some readers, and I don't see an infobox causing enough harm to negate the potential benefit. I like that Dantus21's proposed infobox includes a link to List of compositions by Richard Wagner (though maybe it should also include List of works for the stage by Richard Wagner), which is currently tucked away in a hatnote halfway down the page. As a reader, I have tried to get to information about compositions from a biographical article, and it can be unnecessarily difficult without an infobox. CoatGuy2 (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I see no reason to exclude it, seeing as we already have a box with his picture and signature. Might as well make it easier for the reader. ARandomName123 (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is good to be consistent on this. I am seeing no specific reasons for or against an infobox, just a bunch of people who like them, and another who don't. Therefore there should be one big RfC on infoboxes generally, not what looks somewhat like a rear-guard battle to try to ban the (otherwise widely-accepted) use of infoboxes, on a case-by-case basis from individual articles. Elemimele (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We have already had several project wide discussions, and the consensus has (so far) been that the inclusion/exclusion of infoboxes should be decided on an article by article basis. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's more than that - there is an Arbcom decision still in force Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Mysteriously, not to say sinisterly, this has vanished from MOS:INFOBOX, & I had to get the link from an old version - it should be re-added prominently. The general point decided was: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. 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." Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The text stating infoboxes are optional is still present in MOS:INFOBOX under Using infoboxes in articles. Precisely where in the article it is placed is the result of editor consensus, not some "sinister" pro-infobox conspiracy. Tserton (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    None the less, despite knowing exactly what I was looking for, I failed to find it in a reasonably lengthy skim, so excuse me if my suspicions are not much allayed. The !vote following this shows more eloquently than I could express that many editors, newer ones perhaps, are completely unaware of it, and that it should be restored to its former prominent position. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - They aren't required, but at this point they're part of the house style. Kind of confused why an RFC is needed. FOARP (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They aren't required but we don't even need to talk about it? They aren't required but nobody is allowed to object? This is what makes infobox debates so infuriating. One side invariably thinks infoboxes are required. Srnec (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Srnec- Because this is pure content issue, (presumably) grown adults shouldn't need a full RFC to tell them that when somebody adds an infobox to the article, unless there's a good reason to object (and "I don't like infoboxes" is not one) they should probably just accept it. Infoboxes aren't mandatory, but removing content for no real reason is pointless. FOARP (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @FOARP: Except that content is precisely what everybody denies that infoboxes add! I think that grown adults should be able to read one paragraph and figure out someone's age from their birth date, but apparently that's asking a lot. Srnec (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Yes, it's more presentable than the current image+signature mashup and has potential utility beyond the mock-up above, including adding key influences, most notable works etc. All potential positives. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much you know about Wagner, but that's exactly what we don't want here. Did you have any "key influences" on Wagner in mind? Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not at this stage, and I'm not an expert. Just mentioning a possibility. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Nemov. This is standard practice for biographies. Graham (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no, it isn't, especially in areas of the arts. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it is. The exceptions are deliberately policed by a small group of editors and you know it. Dronebogus (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Infoboxes serve a useful purpose, complimenting the introductory section. (P.S. there's now another RfC by the same user on Mendelssohn's page. SWinxy(talk) 04:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. An infobox will be better than what the article has currently. I support the inclusion of notable works, but not key influence. In the case of Wagner, there are many books that claim many kinds of key influence, from Hegel to Buddhism, and I don't know how we can decide what should be prioritized. The signature can stay. In the past, signatures were important as people lacked other means to verify the identity of the author of a document or an artwork.Deamonpen (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't see what value or benefit an infobox adds here - sure it "summarises key information" but that's like me going to a library and reading the back of a book to find out what it's about ..... If readers want to know certain information then they should read the article or parts of what they want to know. Anyway an infobox adds nothing to the article, We have Simple English Wikipedia if reading isn't your thing :). –Davey2010^Talk 17:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support* I definitely see the value of an infobox; however, I wouldn't be opposed to an amended version that does not include his signature (which, in my opinion, does not impart any real value). Theoretice (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Editors claiming an infobox adds nothing to the article seem to be unfamilar with the policy on infoboxes, which specifies, "[The] purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored.)"

Infoboxes are not meant to add to the article. They're meant to complement it by providing similar information in another digestible format, like presenting ages instead of birth dates, as one example. (I'm a writer not a mathematician.) Penguino35 (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say "complement", I say "compete". (If they literally add nothing, then we should dispense with them entirely.) Srnec (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on infoboxes is not my personal opinion; it's the Manual of Style. Except in rare cases, infoboxes should not present new information. If we're adhering to the MOS while using the parameters of your opinion, we would never have infoboxes.

Readers who prefer prose will glide right over an infobox, and readers who prefer snapshots will navigate to bullets, lists, and charts. Infoboxes make key information on Wikipedia digestible to more readers. Penguino35 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes add structure. They are appropriate where the information in the article is improved by that sort of structure. For example, the infobox at Chris Sununu does not bother me in the least. Because infoboxes standardize, they are, in general, far less appropriate for historical topics. I can't think of much information about Wagner that would be better presented in an infobox. Srnec (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (Here from RFC noticeboard) I'll be honest I was confused to see this as an RFC, and I did not expect to see such push back on a topic as trivial as inclusion of an infobox. I do like that another editor pointed out infoboxes policy stance, it summarizes, not supplants key info. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can see value of including an infobox. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An infobox helps to accurately summarize information for our readers and has value. Lightoil (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Infobox RfC)

Just a general reminder to keep things civil. Many editors here are pretty entrenched in their positions so arguing about it isn't very productive. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A collapsible infobox, would be another option. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]