Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes

Is there no guidance on Lead duplication of Infobox ?

Is there no guidance re the relationship of lead and infobox content ??? Both of them are to be summaries of the important items of the topic, but I was surprised nothing is said in either MOS:LEAD or MOS:IB about how they are to get along or a balance of their respective content.

The only guidance I saw in MOS:LEAD for infoboxes was a sidenote in the placement guidance MOS:LEADORDER : " Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article, "

This interest came up from a TALK in Pound sterling noting the article starts with detailing of ISO code, abbreviation, symbols, and compound noun forms. To me this seemed poor narrative of redundant restating the Template:Infobox currency which is immediately alongside the lead. And almost all of the List of circulating currencies seem to start with the same sort of lead. It doesn't seem to be from a guidance of MOS:CURRENCY, or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, or a TALK in archives...

More than just currencies though, I am surprised there is not something at a general level talking about lead and infobox content... have I missed something ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE explains that they are independent, an infobox should generally contain info that is also in the article. The article should be complete even if the infobox is deleted. There are exceptions. That MOS section uses CHEMBOX as an example where the infobox does contain info not in the article. In practice, there are lots of other exceptions - for example, places often contain the street address of a building when it's not in the article. MB 15:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! This is largely a question -- the redundant contents in lead and infobox for Pound and other currency articles right next to each other looked odd and made a poor narrative flow, but I simply found no guidance about how the content of the two 'summaries' should relate. I do like the MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE line saying "where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox". It mentions the ISO code for linguistics and the parameters of Chembox, and I note astronomical data Infoboxes for such as Sirius and Ceres (dwarf planet) are further examples of that. Could wish for more along about such though -- perhaps MOS:LEAD should also say more about non-narrative items such as infoboxes and images. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC about exceptions to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and commanders/leaders in Template:Infobox military conflict

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

No Consensus to do anything. I see that a few editors added comments recently, but this still has not emerged from the no consensus stage.

This has been going on awhile, and closure has been asked for at least twice at the WP:CR page, so at this point, maybe everyone can take what they've learned so far, and if wanted, start a new discussion. - jc37 11:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Are commanders/leaders (a parameter in Template:Infobox military conflict) specialised information per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and therefore exempt from the general advice at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE that infoboxes summarize ... key facts that appear in the article - ie that information appearing in the infobox should be supported by the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This question relates to a discussion at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Commanders and Leaders. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Notifications:

1. Template talk:Infobox military conflict [1]
2. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style [2]
3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history [3]
4. Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine [4]

Cinderella157 (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

In response to some comments in the affirmative below. An entry in the infobox tells us nothing about a commander/leader except that they are being reported as a commander/leader on a particular side. If we are to know anything about what they did, what they led or anything at all that would make them significant in the context of the article, then this must come from the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

In many cases that they are the commander/leader on a particular side is the significant relevant information. If they said/did something notable in the context of the relevant battle/conflict then yes that will naturally be in the prose, but that is not always the case. It would be particularly confusing if one side's commanding officer did something significant in the context of a specific battle, and so was mentioned in the prose and so allowed to be mentioned in the infobox, but the opposing side's person of equivalent rank did not and so could not be included. It would be even more confusing if only one person from each side's chain of command got mentioned but they were significantly different ranks, indeed there would be a high possibility of this misleading readers (especially those unfamiliar with the rank terminologies of both sides) into thinking they were of the same rank. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This argument would appear to make assumptions about rank and or position in a chain of command, yet no such information is evidenced from an entry in an infobox alone. Furthermore, while a chain of command is usually linear going up, it is branched going down. Nor is there necessarily a cross correlation between sides where there are different command structures and force compositions. Confusion arises from a lack of information - information which is not supplied by an entry in the infobox alone. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• No Leaders/commanders is not a term/concept specialised to military conflicts but applies in many other societal contexts outside the military. In articles on military conflicts, it is generally quite reasonable to write an article such that it is evident from the body of the article that certain leaders/commanders were key or significant to the conflict as indicated by Template:Infobox military conflict. Claiming that leaders/commanders is specialised information and an exemption under WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE it is not meeting the spirit and intent of the guidance at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. IMHO (and in accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and Template:Infobox military conflict) the body of the article should evidence how/why a particular leaders/commander was key or significant to a conflict through more than a passing mention that they simply held a position. It is unfortunate that many editors focus on the infobox and try to write the article in the infobox rather than improving the body of the article. This is precisely what WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE would warn us against. This is not particular to Template:Infobox military conflict. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• No. There's nothing "specialised" about the term or concept "commanders/leaders", and it is rather basic information on a military conflict that should be in the main article material along with source citations for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• No, as per Cinderella157. I’ve been trying in a few relevant articles to tidy up infoboxes with respect to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:RS. That’s what we should be doing, not excepting those infoboxes from general community standards. Bondegezou (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, but procedural close:  this vote is an attempt to hijack the consensus in a content dispute at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Commanders and Leaders. There the military conflict infobox lists no military commanders of a military conflict. Several editors have expressed interest in including them, but User:Cinderella157 is wikilawyering about the infobox guidelines to prevent them from being listed. A “no” vote here feeds the editor’s convoluted and nonsensical argument there. Please don’t indulge them. —Michael Z. 17:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Updated. —Michael Z. 18:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish, @Bondegezou, what the OP really wants to know is whether the defence ministers, top military commanders, and top commanders on the ground should appear in the infobox of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as is being discussed at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Commanders and Leaders.  —Michael Z. 01:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  That is not how I see the situation. Mzajac, you raised an interpretation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE in that discussion. Cinderella157 has raised an appropriately neutrally-worded RfC to seek input and clarification on that matter. I suggest you back off from comments that might be seen to violate WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  No, @Cinderella157 raised it. The question of “exemption” is razzle dazzle, sidestepping the common sense that the identities of commanders especially ones mentioned in the article, are key facts.

  I do not question whether the editor has a good-faith belief their logic should be followed. But it is WP:WL that doesn’t serve the readers, who currently must dig through a 17,000-word article to learn the names of seven commanders and leaders buried in it.  —Michael Z. 17:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Of course commanders and leaders in a battle or war can constitute “exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text.”

  That it is specialized information is self-evident by the fact that this infobox has fields specially defined for it, while other infoboxes do not.

  We can’t leave out some or all top civilian or military commanders as a rule or by default, because they are defining in a battle: notable by their very role of leading it. In many battles only some military commanders are notable enough to be mentioned in the article: but they belong in a chain of command defining a military organization, which normally mirrors its opposing equivalent. It doesn’t make sense to make a hodgepodge by dropping in some notable figures but leaving out the rest by default, or to leave out one side by default.  —Michael Z. 18:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Relevant previous discussions from October and November:

  • Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 10#Commanders and leaders
  • Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11#Commanders and Leaders

   —Michael Z. 18:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, they can be. Militaries are inherently hierarchical, and each conflict has commanders on various levels on all sides. This is key information about the conflict that helps contextualize it for the reader: under whose watch did everything that the article recount happen? Ideally they would also appear in prose in the body of the article, but there are various reasons why it would be difficult to produce natural sounding prose. If it's about a small and obscure skirmish it would be ludacrous to require one to work the names of the commander, army commander, defence minister and president as commander in chief into the prose. As the Ukraine article proves, this does not necessarily even happen in a very developed article about a major conflict. Oftentimes a commander simply plays his role as expected. The role may also be fairly symbolic, administrative or bureaucratic, and there is nothing to note except that they commanded, but this is a key fact that should be mentioned in the article, and sometimes the infobox is the place to do that. Procedurally, this is a very lowly participated RfC ostensibly stemming from a specific discussion on one article but about a potentially massive sitewide application affecting 21,000 articles, so I would not put too much weight on it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, at least sometimes. I came here after seeing the closure request, but after reading the arguments I realise that I am not neutral. Finnusertop explains it well - the leaders are usually key factual information that is relevant to the topic as a whole but they are not always relevant to the prose. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• No. Fundamentally infoboxes are supposed to be for key information, not filling every field, and the more you stuff in there the less attention is given to individual elements. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is pretty clear about this. If the military leaders are not playing a huge role in the article body content, then their inclusion at a high level article isn't really important. INFOBOXPURPOSE also makes clear the exceptions are supposed to be rare and specialized; commanders in a war don't meet that threshold and it makes no sense to compare them to ISO codes or chemical formulas. (Having read through the specific case this RfC was started about, I don't see any difference in that attitude—we recognize with World War II that ministers of defense and minor leaders or even major generals are so important they have to be included versus the overarching leaders of the major factions.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure what you mean by the last. World War II, a Good-rated article on the largest conflict ever, only lists leaders of seven states in the infobox, all mentioned in the article.

  But:

  • European theatre of World War II (C-class) 30 national leaders, fewer than 10 mentioned
  • Eastern Front (World War II) (C-class) 63 national leaders and military commanders, fewer than 20 mentioned
  • Battle of Kursk (Good) 15 military commanders, 11 mentioned
  • Operation Citadel (B-class) 10 military commanders, 10 mentioned

  (I did not attempt to count commanders and leaders mentioned but not listed in the infobox.)

  There seems to be an accepted practice to include integral lists of commanders and leaders that are suitable to the subject, and not only list everyone that’s mentioned in the article.  —Michael Z. 15:50, 14 February 2023 (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.

City infoboxes and extra parameters

Continuing from Talk:San Jose, California#Airport parameter:

In the past few years, I have noticed city articles using the blank parameters in {{Infobox settlement}} to stuff more and more information that would better be explained in the lead as prose, such as listing off airports, highways, waterways, transit systems, and representatives in national and subnational legislatures. I have boldly removed these in the past (to de-clutter infoboxes and keep them easier to update) and discussed the issue at WT:CITIES, but had no definitive response either for or against them until today. My case is citing MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE ("The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.") and NOTTRVAELGUIDE, which discourages including information better suited for a travelogue. I appreciate feedback from the wider community on this, as internal project discussion has not yielded great results. SounderBruce 23:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I effectively cannot agree with the removal of parameters like these. And you can't show an entire list of legislative members in the lead of an article. It would be too messy and wouldn't comply with Wikipedia's article style guidelines, the way it is done for articles like Calgary for example is the most condense and compact, as its a collapsed list that can be expanded. The infobox is used as a crucial information source that users can view at a glance to get key facts. Stuff like waterways, highways, airports, etc are key facts, functions, and features of a city. Especially airports, as they are a cruical transportation route in and out of a city. These parameters have existed in articles for years with no complaints or attempts at removals, until now all of a sudden, with the implementation of Wikipedia's new Vector skin. And to be honest, I'd argue that the purpose of infoboxes have no concrete definitions as to what should and shouldn't be in an article infobox, and is pretty vague in definition. While yes, it does say "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose", city infoboxes should at least have critical transportation routes like airports listed in the infobox. Obviously not everything under the sun should be in an infobox, but infoboxes don't become that much more compact by removing one or two parameters. And the airport parameter (I'm focusing on this one the most) was only ever used to list a city's major international airport, as international airports are super important. They are one of the key tenents of a city. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience agree with your statement that they only clutter infoboxes rather than help an infobox fulfill its purpose.

I additionally suggest an RfC be held to expand and properly define what an infobox's purpose is, as well as define what should and shouldn't appear in an infobox, mainly when dealing with special infoboxes that have options to set custom parameters with the blank parameter names. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 23:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

An RFC to define the infobox purpose seems unnecessary when we have MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. That has been quoted above by SounderBruce. Evelyn Marie, your argument appears to be that airports are a special class of transit hub that should be mentioned in infoboxes. This appears to be a US biased argument, where airports are more common in cities, but you could still argue the case. The RFC you should be considering is an RFC to add airport as an infobox parameter (although what constitutes an airport? does it have to be international? commercial? operational?). At this time, however, it is not an infobox parameter, and the use of the blank parameter to add in whatever an editor feels should be placed in the infobox is clearly at odds with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE as quoted above. It is just infobox bloat. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: My argument isn't that airports are special. My argument is that these blank infobox parameters exist for a reason, to be used and for storing information that is useful for viewers to see at a glance. And the infobox parameter was always used for international airports at least from what I know of. It isn't infobox bloat. And I'm suggesting an RfC because as I've said, that section is awfully vague and doesn't describe what should and shouldn't be in an infobox, just that it shouldn't be massively long. Not to mention, the purpose of an infobox varies widely between different infobox types. There are thousands of different infoboxes on Wikipedia, and you can't properly define what does and doesn't violate the infobox purpose guideline due to that. These parameters were used for airports and such for a reason, to show important information, and they shouldn't be removed except for on a per page basis when a significant amount of editors who usually maintain and edit that page oppose said parameters. But until now those parameters never really faced any opposition from any editors, until now all of a sudden when Wikipedia rolls out with a design update to Vector?

I've been an editor on the platform for a long time. These sorts of discussions never gain much traction and its likely that I'll be the minority in this discussion. However I should point out that these parameters have been removed in the past and immediately restored by editors. It is very clear that these parameters are useful to people. They shouldn't be removed out of the blue, therefore I am stating my concrete opposition to the removal of these parameters for a couple reasons: a) because they've been removed before and immediately restored by numerous editors, and b) because they are used for useful information that readers and viewers find helpful. It'd be like me removing the "Transportation" section from an article. That sort of information is severely useful, as is being able to see what major airports and public transportation systems belong to a city at a glance.

Therefore, I find the removal of these parameters to be severely unnecessary and do not contribute to the betterment of articles, and as such I substantially disagree with their removal. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 20:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you have already stated your opposition. If you want to start an RfC, go ahead. That will bring in more editors to the discussion, but you'll need to sharpen up your question, because you say MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is vague and doesn't describe what should or shouldn't be in an infobox, but then you admit in the next sentence that infoboxes vary widely. That would be why, then. It seems to me, therefore, that what we have is right. "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." What are the key facts for a type of infobox? The ones that have parameters no doubt (and not all of them at once). The existence of a catch all blank parameter does not mean their use is a good idea.

So again, if airports should be in infoboxes, best to start an RFC on having an airport infobox parameter. Likewise train stations, harbours and docks. Also I don't understand how you get that there is a need for this information in an infobox, sorry. If every page had an airport parameter, maybe readers would search there for airport first, but they don't (because there is no parameter for it) and so they presumably just search for the text "airport" anywhere on the page, or they search Google which extracts the information from the page for them. But, of course, I could be wrong. What you need to demonstrate that is not to re-assert your opinion, but to find some HCI or user interface research that shows this is how people are looking for information. If you find it, that will be key information for your RfC.

and they shouldn't be removed except for on a per page basis when a significant amount of editors who usually maintain and edit that page oppose said parameters. That is not how it works. Wikipedia recommends (although it does not mandate) the bold-revert-discuss cycle. Any editor can make an edit, including an edit that removes a parameter recently added to a page (the one at San Jose was added 26 May 2021[5], which is quite recent in that page's history). If anyone disagrees with any edit that is made by another user, they may revert to the status quo, and a discussion should commence in talk to seek consensus. Any editor may contribute to any discussion. Discussion is core to finding consensus, yes, but it is not required prior to a bold edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

As a more concrete example and a rebuttal of your "recent revision to San Jose" mention, similar parameters have been in the articles for Edmonton and Calgary as far back as at least September 17, 2018[6] and September 19, 2020[7], and sometimes even earlier for custom parameters listing highways and waterways. However the latter revision for Calgary is one I personally made, probably after having noticed it in another article, so I have partial bias there, however even then nobody has removed those parameters in close to 5 years (for Edmonton) and nearly 3 years (for Calgary), until now. So, I believe that having these parameters is the status quo for several articles, and while May 2021 isn't exactly a long time ago, it also isn't that recent. Therefore, there is pretty good precedent to have these parameters remain. While obviously not everyone has adopted it for all articles, it is at this point normal for these parameters to exist in these articles. And there is no concrete definition for what comprises "infobox bloat" to begin with, other than not using every single infobox parameter under the sun, especially if given parameters don't relate to a given settlement, e.g. city or town. If the parameters are being used for a useful purpose, and have remained for a long time, shouldn't that effectively indicate what the status quo is?

All I know is while its not super common on most city articles, it is still relatively common. I believe the reason why these parameters were added was because of the sheer popularity and traffic of some of these these aforementioned airports and systems. Take the Calgary International Airport for instance. It is one of the most popular airports in Canada, and one that generates a lot of foot and aerial traffic, for both residents and people who have had layovers at the airport. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox bloat is a perennial problem for infoboxes generally. The advice here is that less is more. There are accessibility issues for mobile users caused by excessively large infoboxes. These are not remedied by using drop-down hidden list since I have been advised that these don't work on mobile devices. WP:NOTEVERYTHING (not a travel guide and not a directory in this instance) applies to articles generally and particularly to the infobox. Just because a parameter exists in an infobox doesn't mean that it should be used! An example is in bios where there is a parameter for the person's signature! If I understand correctly, part of the issue here is that there are free-form or user defined parameters that provide more flexibility to the infobox but there existence is a bit like WP:BEANS - because they exist, we should|can use them. I have specifically looked at Calgary and what I see as the type of edits in question at this article. In my view the Calgary infobox is abysmal, occupying 22⁄3 PC screens. A list of councilors and MPs, even collapsed, falls to WP:DIRECTORY. It is asserted that stuff like the airport highways, waterways etc are important key facts. That is an opinion. A good part of this info can be found in the body of the article and the TOC helps us navigate there quickly. Argument falling to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:OTHERCONTENT to justify inclusion are only valid if this represents best practice (ie is consistently done in our best articles). Infobox bloat is a bit like pornography: it is hard to define but I know it when I see it. Unfortunately, most WP editors approach the infobox from a position of more is better, when this is clearly the opposite of the guidance. IMHO, if an infobox is longer than one PC screen, it is probably too long. Population of an infobox should be approached from a ruthless assessment of is this really necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The "PC screen" mention is highly objective as screens and displays vary widely in size. I have a 4K screen, for example. That is not a proper comparison to make. And infoboxes on mobile (specifically the mobile app, which people should be using over the website) are collapsed by default; if viewers want to see them, they can expand said infobox, so that potential issue is a nothingburger. And the issue is, most city articles contain a lackluster amount of information on their transportation systems. That's why its easy to look at an infobox for example and go "oh, so thats what the major highways are." IMO these things are useful, but I've already said that. IMO, Wikipedia has too many policies that don't go into enough detail, which causes people to interpret things however they want, and it seems the purpose of an infobox is facing that exact issue.

I've made my opinion known. The infobox fields are useful, and therefore should remain. However, you do have a point regarding Canada's city articles and the way some of them handle MP / MLA listings. I have gone ahead and removed the list of MLAs and MPs from the infoboxes of the Calgary and Edmonton articles. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 01:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledge that different displays will render differently. I had meant to indicate that IMHO a good infobox is not more than about 1 screen on my PC. With comparison to the Calgary article, this creates a proportionality transferable to different display environments. Another objective measure is that it should not end after the TOC (ie it does not encroach on the first section after the lead). As for a lackluster amount of information on their transportation systems being a justification for inclusion in the infobox, the lack of information in an article's body would tend to indicate that editors contributing to an article have not considered it significant. It indicates that the information is not a key point (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). It is a justification for it not to be included in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If the articles have "lackluster amount of information on their transportation systems", then that can be fixed with some prose work. And since this doesn't reflect what is in the body, those infobox entries would have to be cited or removed anyway. SounderBruce 21:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the transit info in the boxes. But maybe there could be a whole transportation or infrastructure infobox further down the article. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

These parameters have been used for major transportation elements for far more than just a few years. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize the article at a quick glance, and a major city is going to have a section on its significant transportation infrastructure, so the infobox should summarize that section in the barest way possible. Twice I've already had to reinstate the sole mention of the New York City Subway in the NYC infobox because of the misguided removal of such a critical element of the city as a settlement. The precedent is there (London has the same usage) and has been in use for years. Being that guidelines are to document practice, not dictate it, the guideline for city infoboxes is out of date and must be amended to match the actual use, not be used as a circle to remove key relevant information that is found in the article. oknazevad (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Follow up thought: what makes a postal code that's total administrivia to anyone not mailing a letter to a city worthy of inclusion, but the airport that someone actually traveling to a coty would use unworthy? Seems to me that one is actually relevant to the city as a settlement (since that's the infobox in question) and the other is just pointless numbers.

Also, this is not a question of style, but of content at one particular infobox (albeit a widely used one). This discussion belongs at the talk page of that infobox template, not here. oknazevad (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if the guidelines are out of date, then an RFC on updating the guidelines and adding appropriate parameters makes sense.

Twice I've already had to reinstate the sole mention of the New York City Subway in the NYC infobox. If the infobox has the sole mention of it, it should not be in the infobox. keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Rather than restoring it to an infobox, surely you should be placing the material within the body of the page.

Follow up thought: what makes a postal code that's total administrivia to anyone not mailing a letter to a city worthy of inclusion In most cases it shouldn't be included. However, in the UK there is a concept of postal towns, and where a town article describes the postal town, then (and only then) does it make sense to include the postal code. The mere existence of a parameter does not mean it should be used. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand me. The infobox is not the sole mention of the NYC Subway in the article. In fact, there's already an entire large section about it, because it's a major and significant part of the city both as a piece of infrastructure and as a part of the culture. Which is why it belongs in the infobox. I was saying that removing any mention from the infobox is wrongheaded as not having it in the infobox leaves said infobox deficient as a summary of the article.

In fact, bluntly put, the fact that you didn't know that about the article body tells me that you shouldn't be commenting on the infobox contents at all. Again, infoboxes are summaries of the respective articles. People unwilling to actually look at the article body shouldn't be editing the article's infobox, because how are they going to know what the article contains without looking at it? oknazevad (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed I did not know that about the New York Article body, nor about the infobox, because that is a page you watch, not me. Are only people who edit the New Your City page allowed to comment on infoboxes? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying it's good manners and courteous to familiarize yourself with an article before making significant changes without discussion. Coming in guns blazing to an article and making major changes without familiarity is uncollaborative behavior. It's a real pet peeve of mine when it comes to Wikipedia editing. oknazevad (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The statement, the sole mention of the New York City Subway in the NYC infobox, does tend to convey that it is the sole mention in the article. Talk page communication is not always as clear as we would like. And personalising statements (you shouldn't be commenting on the infobox contents at all) is rarely a good idea since it can easily be seen as uncivil.

The fact is that infobox bloat is a widespread problem not confined to cities. Saying that airports and transit systems are key facts [for all cities] that should be included in the infobox is a personal opinion. While it might be appropriate in some cases, it is not universally done nor is it always necessary. Venice for example has a compact infobox and while it has a large section in the article on transport, there is no related entry in the infobox. To resolve bloat, we need to be ruthless. Many things might be important but not everything important is a key fact that belongs in an infobox. Being close to a subject is not always a good position from which to make such decisions and different editors have different views on what is important. Unfortunately, the result is more often to compromise on what should stay rather than what should go - hence bloat. Also, the lead, the TOC and the infobox all work together to summarise the article. If we specifically consider NYC, I could probably halve the infobox quite easily. The best solution is one that rarely leaves anybody happy. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

See example Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I generally think an infobox should summarize key facts already in the prose of the lead. Too often, an inbox is a repository of trivial information or a replacement for writing prose. Obviously, WP:IAR exceptions apply, but they should be limited. As for airport codes, its surely useful to some readers, but so would a list of major local sports teams, fine arts venues, green spaces, shopping malls, etc. However, we can and do make editorial decisions to exclude, based on consensus. To me, an objective approach would be: "If it's too trivial to write similar prose in the lead, why is it important for the infobox?"—Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Other "blank" fields

Sorry to drop this in the middle of a long conversation. As for community articles in United States, please keep the following "blank" fields, otherwise I don't care if you remove other "blank" fields. I assume you didn't mean to delete these, but thought I better say something since I didn't find the words "FIPS" or "GNIS" in your conversation.

• blank_name = [[Federal Information Processing Standard|FIPS code]]
• blank_info = 20-99999
• blank1_name = [[Geographic Names Information System|GNIS ID]]
• blank1_info = 477999

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No, let's kill those with fire. They are better suited to an authority-control-type template. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox civilian attack and 0 value

I recently noticed editors have been adding 0 values to fields like {{{fatalities}}} and {{{injuries}}} within {{Infobox civilian attack}}. Is this best practice? I was under the assumption that we didn’t need to do this unless the content specifically talked about how there were zero deaths or injuries. In other words, if an article on a school shooting mentions there were three deaths we note that in {{{fatalities}}}, but if it doesn’t discuss that there were 0 injuries we don’t note that in the infobox. Could anyone point me to best practices in this regard? Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox university § Add Visitor as a field

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox university § Add Visitor as a field. Robminchin (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Nationality & citizenship

• Most biography infoboxes have nationality and citizenship. Generally, use of either should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, ...

This is somewhat confusing to me. Are we saying that most biography infoboxes violate the guideline in the next sentence? If so, what are we doing about this? If that's not how I should be reading this, what's the purpose of the first sentence?

Can we perhaps reword the whole thing? Here's my suggestion:

• Use of nationality or citizenship in biography infoboxes should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth.

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem we have is Americas adding American all over. So those from country of origin want it clear what their true nationality is over a passive citizenship. A good example is Albert Einstein where it's just full of junk that doesn't need to be in the info box because it really needs context for a proper explanation. Moxy- 12:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

First Nations/US federally recognized tribes

Since this has been discussed on this page before, I thought this had long been settled, but apparently Edwardx disagrees. Citizens of Canadian First Nations and US federally recognized tribes are dual citizens, typically of Canada and the United States respectively (but not always). The US entered into treaties with tribes as foreign governments. In Worchester v. Georgia (1832) established Native American tribes as so-called "domestic dependent nations", which acknowledges their sovereignty that predates the establishment of the United States. Tribes have negotiated government-to-government relationships with the United States in the era of self-determination.[8]. Many people, including Wikipedia editors, mistakenly believe US federally recognized tribes are ethnic groups;[9] however, they are political entities. For example, the single tribe, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, includes 27 different ethnic groups, while conversely the Pomo people are a single ethnic group, split across 21 different federally recognized tribes. As a citizen of a tribe and of the United States, I have treaty rights not accessible by non-tribal citizens and I have to abide by the laws of my tribal government and can seek redress in my tribal court system. Citizenship to both nation-state and a Native American tribe cannot quickly be inferred from place of birth. Yuchitown (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Can you give an example as we have parameters for this..... we have nationality parameters citizenship parameters place of birth parameters. Is there an ongoing conflict or just something of note ? Moxy- 01:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I just tried to clarify that these are typically listed under "nationality," but that was reverted, so I'm taking it to the talk page. I did have a typo, though. Yuchitown (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

How things are normally dealt with can be seen in our featured articles of related content ....like Jim Thorpe or Simonie Michael. We should be specific...linking generic terms like Native American or First Nations in the lead doesn't help anyone understand anything except for their indigenous. "name" is a Canadian of Naskapi descent who was the first too.... blah blah blah.... that being said is there indigenous status why they are famous? Moxy- 02:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that "Native American" and "First Nation" shouldn't be in the infobox under nationality, and when I see those, I change them to the specific nation the individual is a citizen of. The way I and other members of WP:WP IPNA list nationalities can be found at Rebecca Belmore, Charles Curtis, etc. It's short and simple but quickly conveys maximum information. The citations are found in the prose, but if necessary I can begin adding citations to the "nationality" listing in the infobox as well. Yuchitown (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Unless relevant to notability, Native American should not be in the first sentence of a BLP per MOS:CONTEXTBIO. I'm opposed to having "Muscogee (Creek) Nation" as a nationality[10]/citizenship in the infobox. From what I'm reading, this citizenship thing is only recognised domestically (Canada too? Same thing to me). So chaps can't come to jolly ol' England on a Muscogee passport, they'll be using their universally recognised US passport. For me, this would be like having "Cornish, British" in the infobox. – ².O.^Boxing 10:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Being an enrolled citizen of a tribal nation is not an ethnicity; it's a unique political status. I tried to explain that above with Siletz and Pomo, but another example to try to illustrate: A Maya person born in Guatemala living in Texas and a tribal citizen of Thlopthlocco Tribal Town living in Texas are both American Indian and closely related, ethnically and genetically, but they have completely different political statuses. Yes, members of tribes are usually dual (or threefold) citizens, but I know Muscogee (Creek) Nation citizens living in the United Kingdom. They still have rights through their enrollment and have to follow the laws of the tribal nation. Their Native national identity doesn't fall off the second they travel internationally. It does get confusing quickly, but Indigenous nations have international rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Citizens of First Nations have rights to freely cross the US–Canadian border and work in either country under the Jay Treaty. I'm writing about US federally recognized tribes because that is what I'm most familiar with, but Indigenous peoples of Panama also have strong political autonomy and their own lands, comarcas.

As far a relevance, being a citizen of a tribal nation is central to one's identity. It is not the same as being "Cornish, British." The Muscogee (Creek) Nation has a government-to-government relationship with the United States. It has its own constitution and its own court system. Under McGirt v. Oklahoma the rights of specifically the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and their reservation boundaries were reaffirmed. Yuchitown (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

The article on Indigenous peoples of the Americas says Native American is an ethnicity. To have a BLP say X is a Native American tiddlywinks world champion, the ethnicity would have to be relevant to their notability, not identity.

The way you and others at WP:IPNA are editing is simply wrong. Rebecca Belmore should be listed as Canadian; Lac Seul First Nation is not a nationality and it shouldn't be in the citizenship parameter per Template:Infobox person, Country of legal citizenship, if different from nationality (she should also be described as Canadian in the lead per MOS:CONTEXTBIO). Same with Charles Curtis; Kaw Nation is not a nationality. I don't think the tribal citizenships should be mentioned in the lead at all unless it's somehow relevant to the person's notability (as can be argued for Charles Curtis), but that would be a different discussion. – ².O.^Boxing 21:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about Native American identity and First Nations identity, which are not the same as Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a much broader, vaguer term (that article doesn't state anywhere that "Native American is an ethnicity." I provided examples and links that those two are specific political identities. Yes, absolutely Lac Seul First Nation and Kaw Nation are nationalities. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an insufficient argument. Yuchitown (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

X is a Native American bobsleigh King would be in reference to ethnicity, not nationality. If you want to say it's not ethnicity, but "identity", then fine. But it's still not a nationality and should not be in the first sentence per CONTEXTBIO. From the first sentence of Nationality, Nationality is a legal identification of a person in international law, establishing the person as a subject, a national, of a sovereign state. These tribal citizenships do not have recognition in international law and the tribes (regardless of the fact they have the word "nation" in their name), are not nations or sovereign states, by any stretch of the imagination. This has nothing to do with not liking something, but everything to do with following well-established guidelines instead of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. – ².O.^Boxing 11:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You are being very loose with terminology and proposed policy. This is an infobox talk page. I'm proposing spelling our the WP:IPNA practice of listing one's specific tribal nation and one's nation-state in the "nationality" section of a person's infobox, not a discussion of opening lede senteces. So not "Native American" (which is not an ethnicity; it's a political status as I've cited above that includes innumerable diverse ethnicities and mixed ethnicities, including freedmen for some tribes and, in rare, instances, such as Gov. Kevin Stitt, people of 100 percent European-American ancestry). Instead, for example, it would be listing Kaw Nation and "American" for Charles Curtis. Yes, as I've established with links above, US federally recognized tribes and Canadian First Nations absolutely do have sovereignty and are recognized by international law. I am part of establishing the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and am basing my proposal on cited facts about US federally recognized tribes and Canadian First Nations. Yuchitown (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

The lead issue was raised, I was just commenting as it was part of the edit I reverted. My terminology probably is off in regards to ethnicity, and it's piqued my interest so think I'll read up on it.

When reading Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the "Purpose" section says, This declaration is a resolution, meaning it is not a law-bearing document. Indigenous peoples are not considered political nation-states and do not have access to international law protection through the international court of justice. So that would mean the nation state is still US under international law, and by extension, their nationality/citizenship is American. To me, including tribal citizenship implies it has the same recognition in an internationally-recognised legal sense, that being, a subject, a national, of a sovereign state (country). I think the current wording of INFONAT accurately reflects the general understanding of nationality/citizenship, the country to which the subject belongs. – ².O.^Boxing 18:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, "Native Americans" and "Indigenous peoples" are different legal concepts, but the current wording on MOS:INFONAT already covers what I was trying to purpose, "When needed (e.g. due to change of nationality after birth, dual 'citizenship', or other unusual scenarios), use |nationality= unless |citizenship= is more appropriate for uncommon legal reasons." A person can change their citizenship from Canadian or American to another country but retain their citizenship to their tribal nation. I do know one family that is split between Jordanian and American citizens but they are enrolled in the Osage Nation. Yuchitown (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Following up, Merriam-Webster defines "nation" as:

a(1): NATIONALITY sense 5a

(2): a politically organized nationality

(3) in the Bible : a non-Jewish nationality

b: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government

c: a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status

2 archaic : GROUP, AGGREGATION

3: a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians).

So, it would be nice to spell out protocols for dual citizens of Native American tribes, but existing terminology already covers the appropriate protocol (list both in "nationality" parameter). Yuchitown (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

It isn't covered by the current wording. What you quoted from INFONAT is on the understanding that nationality/citizenship relates to countries, not tribal lands in the US and their domestically-recognised dual-citizenship rights. You said, Their Native national identity doesn't fall off the second they travel internationally. It does get confusing quickly, but Indigenous nations have international rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. According to that article, when travelling internationally their tribal citizenship--legally recognised in the US and Canada--is not recognised under international law. You mentioned somebody in England with Muscogee Nation citizenship; they're not recognised as a Muscogee and British citizen outside of the US and Canada, they're recognised as American and British (assuming they have US citizenship, if not, just British). Same as the Jordanian and American family. The tribal citizenship does not have the same meaning or legal standing, and shouldn't be placed along with or instead of US nationality/citizenship. – ².O.^Boxing 22:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Much of the discussion above is trying to work from first principles. Instead, we can look at what reliable sources do. When reliable sources talk about people's nationality, what do they say? Pick someone who is a member of, say, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation: do WP:RS routinely describe that person's nationality as American/US or as Muscogee or as both? We should follow what RS do. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think how RS describe somebody matters here. The infobox parameters are for the country to which the subject belongs/Country of legal citizenship, which I think I'm safe to assume reflects the general understanding (if not the literal definition) of nationality and citizenship. – ².O.^Boxing 12:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

How RS describe something always matters. It's by looking at RS that we determine what the general understanding is. Do RS understand these terms — the country to which the subject belongs/Country of legal citizenship — to cover recognised tribes or not? Bondegezou (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I provided relevant external links and wikilnks above, but they don't matter if an editor refuses to read them. MOS:INFONAT says, "When needed (e.g. due to change of nationality after birth, dual 'citizenship', or other unusual scenarios), use |nationality= unless |citizenship= is more appropriate for uncommon legal reasons." The MOS doesn't say anything about "countries" or anything about "passports." I'm a tribal member; I've successfully used my tribal ID to return to the US from another country when I didn't have a passport on me. OP is now repeating themself. Thank you for joining this conversation. Hopefully, others can join and share their perspective. But current language covers dual citizens, and I've found one person who was a threefold citizen. Yuchitown (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Thank you for sharing your own experience, which is interesting. You haven't, as far as I can see, provided examples of reliable sources referring to individual's nationality in the manner you propose Wikipedia do. I think that's what would be persuasive. Arguments from first principles are not. Bondegezou (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you looked through all the links I already provided? I provided one more below for the "unique Nation-to-Nation relationship" the US government has with tribal nations. The current MOS:INFONAT "nation" and "citizenship" which absolutely apply to US federally tribes, as cited. It doesn't list caveats of being a country or issuing passports, etc. Yuchitown (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

INFONAT doesn't list any caveats because immediately before the part you quote, it literally says it relates to countries, use of either should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth (bolding mine). – ².O.^Boxing 19:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

General understanding was a daft phrase to use. I should have just stuck with 'as defined by international law'. We don't need to gather RS to determine what nationality means (we already know), they're only needed to determine what somebody's nationality is. If RS are explicitly referring to a person's nationality as Muscogee Nation (X is a Muscogee Nation surfer wouldn't suffice), then they're wrong by the internationally accepted definition. Here comes another Cornish comparison; RS routinely describing somebody as Cornish (as they so often do, even in non-British sources) doesn't mean we put Cornish as their nationality or citizenship, because it's not. It's still British or English. – ².O.^Boxing 14:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

We should not be trying to interpret international law: that's WP:OR. We should go with what reliable sources do. Yes, you are right, this means we need RS (routinely and frequently) describing someone's nationality as Cornish or Muscogee, not just describing someone as Cornish or Muscogee. I don't see that at present, but that's the standard of proof I expect to be applied. Bondegezou (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As you can find in all the links and examples I posted at the beginning of this section, Cornish identity and being an enrolled citizen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation are not the same. I know more about the US than Canada, but in the US, federally recognized tribes are a completely unique political status as domestic dependent nations, who have signed treaties with the United Stats as nations and have nation-to-nation relationships with the US federal government. Yuchitown (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Nationality tells us the definition under international law. If we were to get into semantics about what a "state" is, then that is also defined under international law,[11] which clearly doesn't apply to federally recognised tribal lands. – ².O.^Boxing 19:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If Ireland and other's accept Native American passports [12], if Native Nation treaty with other governments, how do they not have nation status? Indigenous girl (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't find that very convincing at all. If it wasn't a sports team being invited by officials for a specific reason, then you know as well as I do they would be denied entry. I found the article Iroquois passport, which says the passport is not recognised in Europe. The European Council actually calls them "fantasy passports". – ².O.^Boxing 12:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Canada does not have the same sovereignty recognition as the United States does for indigenous people."Sovereignty". The Canadian Encyclopedia. 2014-06-26. Retrieved 2023-03-18. In the United States, Native American (or "Indian") tribes are seen as "domestic, dependent, sovereign nations." They have the inherent right to govern within their reservations. They can make laws, establish courts and enjoy immunity from external lawsuits. This doctrine of domestic sovereignty has never been applied to Indigenous peoples in Canada. That said tribal nationality is not internationally recognized anywhere.... that's why no passports. Moxy- 14:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because Canada doesn't have the same designation of "domestic dependent nations" (original term) as the United States doesn't mean that First Nations aren't nations. "This is recognized by the Canadian government as well, meaning that both Canada and Indigenous Peoples maintain their own sovereign states. Sovereign states indicate that they are two separate governing states residing on the same land" (Karim). Canada negotiated treaties with First Nations. A treaty by definition is "a formally signed and ratified agreement between two or more nations or sovereigns" (Cornel Law School).

I was hoping more editors would contribute to this conversation, but it's mostly been Squared.Circle.Boxing who doesn't contribute to Indigenous articles. As stated before, the current MOS:INFONAT wording allows for US federally recognized tribes and Canadian First Nations to be listed in the "nationality" parameter under: " "When needed (e.g. due to change of nationality after birth, dual 'citizenship', or other unusual scenarios), use |nationality= unless |citizenship= is more appropriate for uncommon legal reasons." MOS:INFONAT mentions "country," only to say "use of either should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth." It is indeed difficult to infer tribal citizenship simply by county of birth.

Tribal nations fit the dictionary definition of "nation." It doesn't matter whether or not tribal nations fit the unwritten definition of "nation" by a particular user. I'm moving on. Current text is fine. Yuchitown (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

If the parameters should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, then the implication is that the parameters should be used when the country to which the subject belongs cannot be inferred from the country of birth. Instructions for the citizenship parameter at Template:Infobox person specifically say Country of legal citizenship, if different from nationality. The current text is fine, and it doesn't support your position. And it's not my definition of the word nation, it's the Declarative theory of statehood's definition. – ².O.^Boxing 04:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I know I need to give up beating this dead horse, but you are quoting "citizenship" perimeter. The infobox person "nationality" perimeter (the one I've been discussing this entire time) states: "May be used instead of |citizenship= (below) or vice versa in cases where any confusion could result. Should only be used with |citizenship= when they differ per WP:INFONAT. Do not put religion or ethnicity in this field. (See |birth_place=, above, for instructions on how to use this parameter, including: no flag templates, inappropriate linking, anachronisms, "country" definitions, etc.)." And as stated in my first entry on this discussion, US federally recognized tribes and Canadian First Natons are not ethnicities. The term is "nationality," which I've provided amble references (as opposed to just linking Wikipedia pages) addresses tribal nations; however, the wikilink you provided, states: "1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states." Those all apply to US federally recognized tribes and Canadian First Nations. Okay, moving on for real this time. Yuchitown (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

I'm also quoting INFONAT, which the instructions for the nationality parameter also quote. Your understanding of the definition of soverign state/nation/country is tainted by your personal views on the subject. Any infoboxes with tribal nations listed as a citizenship or nationality are against guidelines and should be removed. – ².O.^Boxing 16:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remind ourselves of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Edwardx (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on the infobox of the 2018–2022 Italian general elections

An RFC about the infobox of the two general elections in Italy, is being held.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter

Please contribute. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Information in infobox, not in article, again: Heraldic tinctures

I see there's at least one previous section and an RfC on this issue above, but I don't see where it's been discussed previously in relation to heraldic tinctures.

Giltsbeach made their first edit on March 23 and has been editing in the field of heraldry. On April 1, they took two editors to AN/I for disagreeing with them: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#User talk:JalenFolf and User:Mako001. The section was archived after JalenFolf expressed satisfaction that Giltsbeach had not removed information, but when I examined Giltsbeach's edits at Sable (heraldry) their opening statement at AN/I turned out to be accurate: they had removed a section from the article on grounds of the information being in the infobox. Giltsbeach asserts consensus to have this information—on "poetic designations", in other words flowers and gemstones (and in some versions of the articles, metals) that became associated with the tinctures in alchemy and early modern heraldry, see the table at the top of Tincture (heraldry)#List—only in the infobox of the tincture articles on grounds of triviality, which I believe to be the reverse of the guidance. I joined the section that JalenFolf had started at Talk:Sable (heraldry)#Poetic meanings section and edited the article twice: the first time endorsing the rollback by Mako001 while making other changes, the second time again restoring the article section and also reverting a strange layout change that Giltsbeach has since self-reverted. This received a revert by Giltsbeach alleging vandalism as well as editing against consensus. The section on the article talk page failed to change Giltsbeach's mind or to attract participation by anyone else, so on April 5 I started a section at WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology to determine whether there was indeed a local consensus to override project-wide guidance on this matter.

This attempt at discussion also failed to attract a response from any other heraldry editors. Giltsbeach's last engagement with the issue on talk is the identical uncivil personalization at the WikiProject and the article talk. So I then did my own research and I believe I found the origins of the WikiProject deviating from the guidelines back in 2018, in the aftermath of Ssolbergj creating Template:Infobox heraldic tincture and adding it to Gules: this edit by Dbachmann. I put a lengthy report, including pinging the two editors who apparently originally discussed and developed both the sections and the table at the Tincture (heraldry), into the WikiProject discussionon April 8. It's now April 19 UTC and there has been no response; other than Citationbot, no one has further edited the Sable article except Giltsbeach. I appreciate Giltsbeach's willingness to work in a recondite field, and I assume they bring useful knowledge, but I can see no reason for this to be an exception to the guideline that information that can be comfortably accommodated in the article should be there as well as in the infobox. Not all readers read the infobox in preference to or even as well as the article prose, and this is not highly technical, statistical, or graphical material. The "consensus" appears to have come about by oversight, which was why one article, the sable article, still had the information in the article prose. So I can't see even that reason for an exception. Is there one that I'm missing? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Please make more explicit the issue of guidance being contradicted that you are addressing here. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The guidance page begins with this overview: keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The only information about exceptions that I can find is in the next paragraph: there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox. and belownoting less than perfect compliance and further technical/tabular examples: Be aware that although all information in an infobox ideally should also be found in the main body of an article, there isn't perfect compliance with this guideline. For example, the full taxonomic hierarchy in {{Taxobox}}, and the OMIM and other medical database codes of {{Infobox disease}} are often not found in the main article content. Giltsbeach's first edit to the Sable article, on April 1, violates this guideline by removing a section from the article, leaving only the listing of that information in the infobox. So did Dbachmann's 2018 edit at Gules, which I linked above. Giltsbeach then edit warred over removal of the article section, culminating in their opening the AN/I against the two editors who had reverted them: their rationale at AN/I is explicitly contrary to the guideline in that they assert the prose section is undue because the information is in the infobox: I made an edit to the Sable (heraldry) article to remove a subsection with redundant information that was given undo weight. The information was already found in the infobox to the right of the page, and remained there with my edits. On the article talk page, they also asserted triviality as well as local consensus: The poetic interpretation isn't a key fact, it's trivial. A fad. ... The rest of the tincture articles follow this style. The community has already come to a consensus on this. Its not being a key fact is a reason to exclude it from the infobox rather than from the article, its being trivia is a reason to exclude it from the entire article (neither of which I am advocating; it's referenced information), and it is not difficult to integrate into the body text. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, in general terms, I would agree. In more specific terms, this is a content dispute that I really don't want to be drawn into. The way to gather greater participation would be through an RfC. As a word of advice, an RfC would need to be succinctly stated. Your comments tend to be very long and have the appearance of being a wall of text. Many people just aren't going to persevere. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I do understand about the wall of text; but you asked me to spell it out :-) I don't see it primarily as a content dispute; the information is still there, just only in the infobox. Or yet primarily as a conduct issue. It's a matter of whether the guideline remains valid, and the same point of contention has come up here before. So I bring it to the MOS wonks :-) I'm prepared to be schooled on why this constitutes a valid exception to the guideline (you suggest you broadly agree with me that it isn't, but there may be a relevant discussion somewhere that I've failed to find, or some other precedent for "trivial" material being confined to the infobox even if referenced). Alternatively, maybe the guideline no longer reflects actual practice and requires some rewriting; that would make an RfC here desirable. Since local consensus shouldn't trump project-wide consensus, I don't think an RfC at the WikiProject would be advisable. But I'm not at that point; I'm seeking knowledgeable input, since I didn't receive explanations from anyone except Giltsbeach. As I say, maybe I'm wrong. I am very much not an MOS wonk :-) Thanks for looking! Yngvadottir (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

As per Cinderella157, this is partly a content dispute, but on the general point, information in the infobox needs to be somewhere in the article as well. Bondegezou (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my impression that there is no reason for these articles to be an exception to the rule. I'm sorry again for the length. One reason for it was that I wanted to be clear that I'd tried to discuss the matter on both the talk page of the article where I ran into it and at the WikiProject. Since there have been no further responses in either, and no defence here from Giltsbeach (note that I also did my best to summarise their rationales), I intend to reinsert the sections into all the heraldic tincture articles. If Giltsbeach reverts again, I'll consider it a conduct issue; no one has agreed with their position on the issue. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This issue has already been hashed out on the admin noticeboard, on the article talk page, and on the Heraldry WikiProject page. My position is already well established. You are clearly fighting a war of attrition. Anyways, you are very well aware that the only other editor to chime in on the subject came around to my side [13]. You are lying when you say no one has agreed with my position. You are the one that has failed to gain a single supporter. You are the one that could not build a consensus. If you continue to lie and edit without consensus then I will escalate your behavior to the appropriate noticeboard. Giltsbeach (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)