Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 → Archive 19

Request for comment on removing genres from musician, album, and song infoboxes

There is a strong consensus against removing and prohibiting the "genres" field from musician, album, and song infoboxes. Some RfC participants mentioned requiring inline citations for genres in infoboxes. There was no consensus for or against requiring inline citations for genres in infoboxes in this RfC owing to insufficient discussion, so there is no prejudice against discussing that in a separate RfC.

Cunard (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The "genres" field should be removed and prohibited from musician, album, and song infoboxes. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Billhpike: As this is the first RFC I've started, I may have messed up with making it. According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief, I'm not supposed to provide a rationale as the RFC statement is supposed to be neutral. My personal rationale is provided immediately below the RFC statement. Is that not the correct way to go about creating an RFC? I would appreciate pointers if I've messed up procedurally. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Quite a few opposers have brought up that sourcing can be problematic in prose content as well, but I believe the main concern isn't that infobox genres are often unsourced, it's that genre is a fluid concept that can't be distilled down to a few labels in the infobox, ie trying to box all music and music topics into genres is a fundamentally insurmountable project (the edit wars are a symptom, not a problem on their own). As an example, I'll point out Never Be the Same (Camila Cabello song), which has the song labeled as "Pop" in the infobox. However, the Composition section is far better with describing what "genre" or style this song is, pointing out the dark pop, bombastic electro elements, as well as describing other interesting aspects of the musical composition of the song. For albums and musicians, it makes even less sense to box them into genres. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course genres—especially in popular music—aren't a sufficient replacement of more detailed explanations. However, even though genres are vague, it doesn't matter because it's the classification system which is widely used to classify music. In contrast to your example, the infobox parameter serves as an useful location for these terms. For example, the GA-rated article for Perry Como doesn't mention "pop" in prose, only in infobox and categories. RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 Comment: The others being instrument and associated_acts, have just as much unsourced additions/removal as genres. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • My concerns with the discussion that the RfC author links to and this one has nothing to do with sources, the problem is disruptive changes based on personal opinions, yes some have sources (which support their opinions). They're sources with their own opinions (just because some editor of X-website or journal, newspaper, ect..) has their opinion doesn't mean it's even close to what's generally thought of the subject. Another problem is lots of people think if the artist is heavy metal, everything they release is the same, but in reality a punk band can release a heavy metal song, or album. I'm on a razor edge between support and oppose, because removing the genre parameter form the infoboxes just means the mentions in prose will now be the target. IMO, when disruptive editing (ie. Genre warring) Admins need to take action (in most genre warring reports WP:BRD because the editor will not respond (because they just want to see a change published "that they made") or they just want to make their opinion made. Either way It's disruptive and time consuming for editors who have to revert and warn. End of rant - FlightTime (open channel) 01:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this is part of your problem, FlightTime. You don't have to revert and warn when somebody disagrees with you. I agree with you about "IMO, when disruptive editing (ie. Genre warring) Admins need to take action (in most genre warring reports WP:BRD because the editor will not respond (because they just want to see a change published "that they made") or they just want to make their opinion made." What action would you take against this, this, this and this, for example? In the first three examples, what appropriate sanction do you think should be given for failure to cite a reliable source? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Box warriors will get bored, but I see that causing another issue. The infobox allows so that readers don't have to read so much. If things like these were only stated in article prose, that'll be so much more that readers will have to read, seeing as how long Michael Jackson and any Michael Jackson album/single-related article are for example. That solution might be helpful as far as editors are concerned, but damaging as far as readers are concerned, so it's almost like trying to address one issue with how genres are being discussed will cause other issues with how genres are being discussed. No solution that has been proposed thus far is going to address all of the issues that have so far been raised in this discussion. —Mythdon 02:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I see little need for articles about compilations.Vmavanti (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Someone does, there are 15,000 articles about them. - X201 (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Fish and karate: But what about Doo-wop?— Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: "Doo-wop is a genre of rhythm and blues music" Fish+Karate 07:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC that might be of interest

See Talk:Stanley_Kubrick#RfC:_Should_a_collapsible_infobox_be_added_to_this_page? for more info. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Bracketed plurals

Here's a small thing that bothers me in infoboxes: bracketed plurals. For example, Songwriter(s): Roger Waters

I understand this is to accommodate situations where there could be one songwriter or several. But I think it's unnecessary; just writing "Songwriters" suffices. The bracketed (s) is ugly, and listing a single item after a plural doesn't look weird to me. I suspect, though, that others may disagree... Popcornduff (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"Defining data" as the term for content in infoboxes

I set up Wikipedia:Defining data to describe the kind of content which goes in infoboxes. I then added a link to that from the documentation here.

Is anyone aware of anyone applying a name to this kind of information or setting up guidelines for infobox content elsewhere? Thanks for any guidance.

If anyone remembers any historic discussion, even if you cannot find the link, please share any details you can recall such as circumstances of conversation, topic, approximately when it happened, or whatever else seems useful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree that the standards for infobox data should be less than those for article text. The reliability guideline should be applied universally. There is some leeway from WP:CALC with regard to the type of data discussed in your essay. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@DrKay: I have some examples at Wikipedia:Defining_data#Examples where I think the reliability guideline fails for prose but works for infoboxes. What do you think? The need for primary source citations or original research comes up much more often for infoboxes. We might have a universal guideline but I want some clarity on this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@Lane: thanks for making a start on this topic. I have a couple of minor points to add. There's a formal distinction between "data" and "information". When the data has been organised and placed into context, as it is in an infobox, it becomes information. I've always seen the phrase "key information" applied to infobox content. The difference between "key" and "defining" is that "key" implies a limited subset of the information, and it seems to me a slightly more apposite term when considering the issues of infobox bloat. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@RexxS: I could go with "key information". How sure are you about this? I could make changes now, or we could wait a bit, or I could seek other comments. I did a search around and yes, "key information" is a term in use in various places. I am not aware of any other term in use. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The reliability guideline, or notability guideline, applies in all those examples. If no sources ever defined Rani of Jhansi, then it wouldn't belong at wikipedia. In the case of the Rani, there are of course multiple sources that define the term. She was an important historical figure. We can't reduce our requirements for reliable information; it would just lead to people making things up about her. DrKay (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
All sorts of data can be reliably sourced... some of that data belongs in an infobox, and some doesn’t. Some types of information are best presented in an infobox format, while other types of information are not. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary, it seems to me we should use "defining" for infoboxes in the same spirit as it has long been used in categorization, with a certain leeway for defining sets of information, like sports or ship statistics. Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Where to put things like 'Acting', 'Elect', 'Designate', etc.

Myself & @Goodone121: have a disagreement at Mick Mulvaney. In relation to it, I believe about a year ago, an Rfc was held on the matter of where to place 'Acting', 'Elect', 'Designate' etc infoboxes of politicians. Only about 5 editors participated then. Perhaps we should have an another Rfc here? with hopefully more input. GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Can you link to the previous discussion(s), especially that RfC?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is the Rfc-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure this needs another RfC, since the result was effectively unanimous (there was one neutral !vote – yours). The discussion would have been better held at WT:MOSBIO or WT:MOSINFOBOX, but if the regulars of WP:WikiProject Biography don't make for a good enough sampling of editors who care about how we write bios, I'm not sure what would be. I wouldn't object to another RfC, but I think the result will be the same, and the original RfC is a good enough rationale to just put its result in the guideline. I think it should be in MOS:BIO, though, since it's bio-specific and doesn't pertain to infoboxes in general.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The only problem with the previous Rfc, was lack of participation. Can four editors impose their will on all infoboxes of related topic? GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, when an RfC is well-advertised, properly conducted, and the editorship at large accepts the result. There is no "there must be at least X number of editors present for a consensus to form" rule. It all really boils down to whether the editorial community accepts (explicitly or implicitly) the decision and generally abides by it – and that's most likely to happen when the conclusion simply puts already-dominant practice into words. Many WP:RMs have fewer respondents than the four in that RfC, yet still have precedential value under WP:CONSISTENT policy, as one example. RfCs don't even actually exist to be a decision-determination process, like a vote; they're requests for comments (for discussion) toward formulating consensus. Consensus can and most often does form without one, just by most editors doing something, and the editorial pool converging on it as a norm until we bother actually writing it down. I'm entirely neutral on the question asked in the RfC, and really don't care about it. I'm just speaking from a procedural position. If an RfC with five (counting the closer) total respondents wasn't valid, then the RfC process would have been abandoned the month it was introduced, as simply unworkable. Or an actual rule for min. number of participants would have been implemented (a form of quorum, i.e. a form of actual voting). Since we're all volunteers here, we can't force people to come participate in RfCs that they don't feel merit their attention. And since WP isn't a bureaucracy, we can't hold up something, in absence of any actual dispute over it, just hoping others say the same thing as the four who already did. If something like this turns out to generate more opposition than it does support/compliance, then obviously there's a WP:FALSECONSENSUS problem and a new discussion needs to happen. Or, yeah, you can just run another RfC, but we already have a lot of them, and a big closure backlog, so they're best reserved for actual disputes/confusions, not just potential ones.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Multiple boxes per page

Is there guidance anywhere about the use of multiple independent infoboxes (ie. not one embedded in another, but entirely separate) on a single page? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Sometimes it's reasonable and sometimes it's not. I've tried to remove it in an unreasonable case and been reverted. --Izno (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to offer firm guidance because there is such a spectrum of cases where a judgement call is made to use multiple infoboxes in the same article. At one extreme, a song will often have a single article describing several notable versions by different artists. Our convention has been to create a section and an infobox for each version, and I think almost everyone will see that as reasonable. On the other hand, a single person who has more than one notable role will almost always be best served by embedding a child infobox. But there will be many grey areas, and it would take a lot of work surveying how each solution is used to try to distil good guidance. --RexxS (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
More than one completely seperate infobox should be seen as a rare exception that needs justifying, though it may be acceptable for songs. But the amount of different extra information such boxes hold is generally not worth "boxing". I very rarely accept it for works of art with different versions. One can normally be pretty sure that the person adding such a box has not given the question much serious thought. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I've seen it a handful of times with biographical infoboxes, for someone genuinely and seriously notable in two fields for which we have and regularly use well-developed infoboxes that are actually helpful. I've mostly left these alone, except to remove redundant parameters (e.g. vital stats shouldn't be in both). In a few cases I've removed a second box when it was not actually helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Signature parameter RFC

Please see Template talk:Infobox person#Signature parameter RFC for an RFC about removal of the signature parameter from ((Infobox person)). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox character and WAF

Editors of this page may be interested in Template talk:Infobox character § Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding extra spaces to infoboxes

Eg here:[1]. Is this a problem? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding/removing the spaces does not seem to affect the visual output (what the reader sees) at all... Not sure if adding/removing spaces affects the “behind the scenes” collection of meta data (nor do I really care). Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding a category to infobox

Is there a useful guideline known for/against adding a category to the infobox? Most acceptable could be the eponymous category, and possibly there are arguments for other categories (example in case: ((Infobox gold)) could have Category:Gold, and Category:Gold compounds). -DePiep (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The applicable guideline is WP:CAT#T - templates don't belong in content categories. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
??? Misunderstanding? I propose to add a (clickable) category-link to an infobox. For example: ((Infobox gold/sandbox)) (see bottom ofinfobox). -DePiep (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
What do you feel would be the benefit of that in addition to having the category on the article as is typical? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
For starters: having the eponymous category is the first and foremost click helping. I'm sorry if I cannot explain: it's soooo obvious IMO. (((Infobox gold)) → Category:Gold; see ((Infobox gold/sandbox))). -DePiep (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I've seen it, and it's still not obvious to me why this would be desirable. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
(Redacted)
The advantage would be that the reader can click to all primary related topics easily. -DePiep (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
More