Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Hahc21 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & David Fuchs (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. AGK
2. Courcelles
3. David Fuchs
4. Newyorkbrad
5. NuclearWarfare
6. Salvio giuliano
7. SilkTork
8. Timotheus Canens
9. Worm That Turned
10. Carcharoth

Inactive:

1. Roger Davies

Recused:

1. Risker
2. Kirill Lokshin

Metadata: Request for Explanation

On the one hand, the comment is made in support of infoboxes that they emit metadata. (I won't bother to argue that is a different type of metadata than either of two technical types of metadata with which I am familiar, photographic metadata and database metadata. It is metadata in that it is data about the data in the main article.) My question is why the emitting of metadata is considered desirable. I can understand summarizing an article for the reader, which is not metadata, but a simplified summary. What is the intended function of the metadata?

On the other hand, there are references to a "traveling metadata circus", of which Andy Mabbett may be the ringmaster. Does this traveling circus say that one of their objectives is putting metadata in article infoboxes so that they will emit it, or is this an inference as to which they like infoboxes? I think that Mabbett has stated his own reason for liking metadata, which is that he is lazy and doesn't want to enter the same facts twice. (I understand but think that that view reverses cart and horse. If one only wants to enter data once, enter it in the body of the article, where it can be sourced.)

Can someone explain what the reason is for thinking that infoboxes are good because they contain metadata? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Metadata means "data about data" and is a shorthand for numerous programming devices that encapsulate data in a convenient way to add meaning to it. We have an article on microformats that should help explain how they aid others in re-using our data, but a simple example is that we can attach the class "bday" to a <span> containing a date, which indicates a semantic meaning to that date as a 'birthday'. This allows easy recognition of anyone (or any program) examining our content to identify that date as a date-of-birth, and makes it easier for that to be done by automated means. We don't want to ask editors to learn CSS just to make this improvement, so we embed these classes inside a template, and and obvious candidate is the infobox template, since it already has most of the data likely to be relevant to a given article. Other templates such as Persondata contain microformats, but obviously only apply to people; infoboxes are ubiquitous and perform the function of providing microformats without any further editor effort.

Another, related, factor is that infoboxes have a predictable structure that enables other uses. An example I regularly quote is that Google uses our infoboxes to train its text-reading algorithms, dramatically improving their accuracy. (It can do this by reading a key fact, such as a date-of-birth, from an infobox and then looking for that date in the text, confident that when it finds it, the surrounding text is describing a birth.) As Wikipedia is probably the largest database of broad-based knowledge ever produced, it is particularly useful for anybody working on text-recognition and artificial intelligence.

Not everybody is going to agree that all of this is important, but I submit that it is of increasing importance as we strive with increasingly fewer editors to fulfil our mission to bring knowledge to every human on the planet. We're going to need some help with that, and making our content more available is a step in the right direction.

Having said all of that, I'd be the first to concede that infoboxes also have problems in some cases, and so in those cases we have to weigh the benefits against the disadvantages and respect other editors' reasoned views. But that has to go both ways. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

One point: persondata doesn't use microformats, and is unique to Wikipedia, unlike microformats, which are used and understood globally. I have an essay about why persondata is suboptimal compared to microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're underestimating the power of Wikipedia to define new standards. Both the "persondata" and "infobox" classes are proprietary to Wikipedia, but both are just as recognisable as a "vcard" class, for example. There's very little that globally understood microformats have that "persondata" and "infobox" don't, and programmers are quite capable of treating them alike. Having over a million examples in a database makes it very tempting for researchers to handle our common classes in the same way as the older microformats, but I accept that I oversimplified in my explanation. I do agree with the points you make in your essay, by the way - very useful. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Aware we're both veering off-topic. This is a three-pint discussion ;-) Funny, when I suggest we actively and openly define a new standard, I get stamped on for that, too. Wikipedia is so big that the things it does get noticed; but it's not defining open, reusable standards like microformats (or RDF, etc). How many other websites use class="infobox" and what does it mean when they do? That and persondata, are, strictly speaking proprietary. That's not to say it's not good and useful when we do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"I think that Mabbett has stated his own reason for liking metadata, which is that he is lazy and doesn't want to enter the same facts twice." I was misquoted (there's a surprise). What I said refers to the microformat method of marking up ("labelling" it with HTML classes, as RexxS describes above) content which is already in a template being more efficient than entering it again, separately to that template (as is done, for example, with Persondata). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Could we solve this with an appropriate topic ban on Andy Mabbett? The attempt at a ban from TFA was not fully successful because he went to the talk page instead, but that could be revised. I have largely met him at classical music-related articles and a topic ban from those would prevent re-occurrence of the friction with Smerus, Kleinzach etc in the areas I watch, but I think Giano's and Johnbod's problems with Andy are in other content areas. Is it possible to itemize those.

I'm reluctant to suggest discretionary sanctions as a means for providing flexibility as I have experienced just how crazy they can be in the hands of an admin with no common sense.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If having Andy at the FA talk page is an issue than restrict him from that. I don't see any reason for a topic ban. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We could solve a lot of problems by banning editors from editing, but that doesn't actually equate to improving the encyclopedia, does it? If there is a problem with Andy's editing, it will be there in the evidence and we'll have findings of fact based on that evidence. But I'm not seeing that case made at all. We generally don't move forward by banning good-faith editors - because we then lose their good contributions. Otherwise, first you'll ban Andy and then you'll ban Gerda and next you'll ban me, just for disagreeing with you. Animal farm all over again. --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

So far I haven't seen - although I asked again and again - any evidence of "disruptive" editing by Andy in 2013. I was much worse, ban me! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic bans are generally just fodder for another dramafest by people who have it "in for" the banned person. I am thinking of the eternal example of now-User:Eric Corbett aka George, aka Malleus, etc. The people who don't like someone just stalk them endlessly and never drop the WP:STICK, the banned person tries to edit constructively in spite of not being allowed to do the thing they often do the very best but the goalposts are constantly shifting. It's also a nightmare for anyone who sincerely tries to enforce anything. I don't think that Andy really needs to have any long-term sanction at all here, I think that ALL of the most heavily involved anti-Andy combatants need to be reminded about their own [{WP:BAIT]]ing, and the punishment we've all taken just responding to this whole thing has got to be more than enough - I know just being mostly a bystander has been raising my own blood pressure! (Not sure if non-arbs can post to this page, if I'm not supposed to post here,someone move this to where I CAN post??) Montanabw^(talk) 20:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

What has Mabbett contributed to these FAs apart from infobox disputes? That's the question you should be asking yourselves. Is the friction he creates with his "add an infobox the day after it's TFA" technique worth the drain on other editors' time? --Folantin (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I right that it happened once in 2013, - and then - repeating - not a "disruption" by adding an infobox (my style), but just a question "Why not?"? The Rite of Spring is not a composer, really, why not? - Let's assume it will not happen again, assuming good faith. Much better to talk about the question during FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple instances cited in the Evidence. "Let's assume it will not happen again, assuming good faith." This is highly unlikely given Pigsonthewing's track record. --Folantin (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Do me a favour: of the "multiple instances", just repeat those of 2013 other than 29 May, you know your evidence better, I tried and must have missed them. - I made a suggestion for improvement, why do you think Andy would not take it? Then "after TFA" would not happen again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

See Voceditenore's evidence for disputes in close proximity to the TFA. --Folantin (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked at Voceditenore's evidence. I found no "disruptive" editing by Andy. (I found a case that I had missed in my evidence, but that had nothing to do with TFA and was by me. Ban me!) In the light of this, I urge you to modify some of your statements in the workshop. It looks like Andy asked (!) once the question "why not an infobox?" on the talk page (!) of an article right after TFA time in 2013, that was The Rite of Spring, not even a biography. Do you think that is "disruptive"? - Anyway, I believe he could stop even that and look for FA nominations rather than after TFA time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I think you may have overlooked his subsequent 64 other edits to the talk page, which made him the biggest contributor to that talk page. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I was in the discussion, as you will know. We need to distinguish "Yep, the typical Pigsonthewing technique again." of coming in close to TFA time (that I fail to see in 2013), and tirelessly fighting for an argument, which (I admit) can be annoying especially if you are on the "other side". Now I am on his side, of course. I see absolutely no reason to present the major musical work as if it was a painting, and would prefer to present at a glance key facts and a view to a stage. See my user for a different style of performance of the piece (2009) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sadly I was also part of that spat too. I think it was a rather contentious time for him to post his first comment and it may have wiser to have left it until a week or so after the front page appearance. I have already had my say on Andy's combative discussion "style" or technique: thankfully I seldom come across people who use words as blunt weapons, cudgeling their opponents into submission instead of trying to work towards a consensus. A little humility goes a long way in a discussion and I think that is a quality missing by both sides when it comes to infobox discussions. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Another question: does "freedom of speech" mean "freedom to filibuster"? --Folantin (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Diffs please, Folantin. As for "contributions to FA" I would say that making sure infoboxes are used properly and are the best they can be IS a valued contribution to FA. For example, see Andy's helpful syntax edits at two FAs that I touched in on, Thaddeus Stevens or ALBC. Sometimes the template has to be tweaked on an infobox when an article is at FAC and the infobox becomes a concern. here is an example of where a small wikignoming edit by Andy was simple, non-contentious and helpful. I could show hundreds more examples of where Andy popped in, made a minor but helpful wikignoming cleanup, and then quietly departed. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The 65 comments at Talk:The Rite of Spring are a prime example of filibustering. Are editors going to be forced into engaging in such discussions with Pigsonthewing whether they like it or not? If they don't want to engage in such discussions, will they be labelled "unco-operative" and accused of "refusing to seek consensus" etc.? --Folantin (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear - 65 comments? I see 65 edits, at least 14 of which are marked as minor and a manual count gets me 39 comments, but looking further, there were ~190 edits during the discussion and a casual reading does show him to overwhelm the conversation. I've seen filibustering on Wikipedia, but this doesn't appear to be as bad as you're making out. Worm^TT(talk) 13:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

39 comments is still an enormous number, especially when you've only made one minor edit to the actual article [1].--Folantin (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In at least seventeen of those comments, I'm answering a direct question,. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Replying to, not answering: there is a difference. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced

Smerus' proposals seem to be in the wrong section of the page. It would probably be better if a clerk, rather than an involved editor, moved them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Explain, please?--Smerus (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You put your proposals after the " Analysis of evidence" section; they belong before it, like everyone else's. Somebody else has now fixed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fine, of course.--Smerus (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Arb Request

I know that I haven't been active in presenting evidence or offering solutions in the workshop. Many links and much text has been provided which speaks in greater detail than I could have. I was glad to see Nikki enter this situation, as I do think that there has been a bit of "stalking" going on which is not the kind of behavior I would like to see from an admin. Somewhere it has been written that administrators should be held to a higher standard. I don't know that it's something backed by policy or community consensus, but I do think it is a fair request. Admin. or not, edit warring is not acceptable, and with 3 blocks for such behavior, I think it's important for Nikki to understand the rules. No, I don't claim any misuse of tools - and NO I would not like to see Nikki (or anyone for that matter) dissuaded from adding to our project.

Now I'm seeing a lot of the folks from the composer project (and elsewhere) asking for Andy to be banned from infoboxes (which does not surprise me); personally I hope that is not a solution the Arbs will instate. My impression is that as a collective group, the composer project has decided that infoboxes are not desirable. When it comes to obscure topics which only present a stub, then I do understand that an infobox should not overwhelm the article. I see the position stated that infoboxes "oversimplify" or mislead. I'm at a loss to understand that. I won't pretend to understand metadata, wikidata, megadata .. or any other kind of data - but I don't understand how a little box that lists a person's birth date, spouse, death date, or details somehow "misleads" anyone.

I think that User:Giano made a very astute observation in that experts in any particular field should be allowed the latitude to guide others in what is or is not acceptable content. I do however disagree that this is a reason to include or exclude an "infobox". Much of the discord revolves around people. How it is unacceptable to have an infobox which states the talking points such as date of birth, date of death, spouses, etc. escapes me. Which leads me to my request.

First I would like to commend and thank David for offering thoughts at various stages. Second: I do understand that the current committee is a group of individuals with a wide range of views, which often leads to confusion in many areas. My request is that the arbs as individuals (recused or not) offer some thoughts here. The final decision will be definitive, and the community will have to accept it. Still I think there would be value in a "mediation" type of discourse which could guide the community in seeing multiple viewpoints. I requested this case in the hope of finding a common ground; NOT to seek sanctions of those who contribute their valuable time to provide information. I'm asking the committee members as individuals to please speak your mind. The community wants ... no .. NEEDS leadership. Talk to us please. — Ched :  ?  19:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ched, you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, I've been rather distracted with other matters and haven't spent as much time commenting on matters here as I should. I'll endeavour to do so today. Worm^TT(talk) 09:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Workshop closes 7 August -- but which timezone?

I've never been to the interactive bits of WP before .. what timezone are you operating to, and what's the closure time tomorrow in UTC? Scarabocchio (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses UTC, so generally a closure on 7 August will mean anything up to 23:59 on the 7 August. I'm hardly the most fastidious on these matters, but would prefer we brought things to a close sooner rather than later. Worm^TT(talk) 14:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Judging by the evidence page (my question on this matter there remains unanswered; the point is no doubt moot), it's a timezone about four days behind UTC... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The Ban on Love

The critical point in the infobox discussion seems to be how to determine a consensus on a given article. Lets take an example, Wagner's early opera Das Liebesverbot (The Ban on Love)) and look at the merits and flaws of the present side navbox (in the position of an infobox, and duplicating information from the footer navbox {{Richard Wagner}}) and a suggested infobox ({{infobox opera}}, made available by project opera in June). Let's collect opinions and views, and practise consensus: how would it be determined and by whom.

Merits:

Flaws:

1. It is in the position where readers are used to see an infobox.
2. It's the same for all stage works by Wagner.
3. It highlights in title and image a person, not a composition.
4. Readers not used to collapsed content don't realise that it is a navbox.
5. It navigates away from the article. Gerda Arendt (talk)

Das Liebesverbot
opera in two acts by Richard Wagner
The opera's composer, c. 1840
Librettist	Richard Wagner
Language	German
Based on	Shakespeare's Measure for Measure
Premiere	29 March 1836 (1836-03-29) Magdeburg

Merits:

1. It provides information on the article subject.
2. It shows the composer around the time when he wrote the opera, and could show an image more related to the opera if we had one.
3. It provides key facts, such as time and location, at a glance and in granular form.
4. It emits metadata.
5. It has a clear design. Gerda Arendt (talk)

Flaws:

Consensus:

With my known bias, "consensus" would lean heavily toward the infobox ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• This case has too much focus on opinions regarding infoboxes. Arbitration has been requested because of the disruption from unresolved disputes, and Arbcom is likely to target that disruption rather than the question of whether a particular infobox is good or bad. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a case question. You may also be wrong about the reason why Arbitration was requested. - I am interested in avoiding disputes in the future. The question above is if the insertion of an infobox like this, for an opera (not a biography of a classical music person), is disruption, if reverting it is disruption, or if can we get to a more amicable solution in the future. Do you understand that it is only one example for about 1000 articles on operas (so I was told)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he was wrong about why arbitration was requested. Cases are only accepted on the basis of conduct disputes. But for this specific content dispute example, I think you are presenting a false dichotomy. The options are not just between the current Wagner Operas sidebar and the infobox. The option of using neither also exists, as does the option of using just an image (possibly of Wagner, preferably of something relevant to the play itself). I noted in the workshop that I like infoboxes. I use them all the time in my project areas. But when I look at this example, I see two things: first, {{Richard Wagner}}) should be deleted as redundant to Wagner's navbox. And if I had to choose between those two options exclusively, I would choose the infobox. However the second thing I see is that there is no explicit need for an infobox at all here. I compare to The Rite of Spring, and I think that is superior to placing an infobox simply for the sake of having one. Resolute 14:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please distinguish why arbitration was requested and why it was accepted. - To the article: The options of having nothing in that corner or just a picture also exist, but let's try for now to keep it simple. - There is never a "need" for an infobox, I am not insisting, I don't think they are mandatory. I like them as giving me a feeling for time and place of an article which I may come across randomly. I like data structured, not for the sake of re-users, but my own reading. The footer navbox should certainly not be deleted: 1) It contains much more information than the other. 2) It's not restricted to a narrow column and can present that information better. 3) It's in a place where a navbox belongs. 4) It should be present in all linked articles, including this one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about placing infoboxes for the sake of having one, it's about placing infoboxes to improve the article for readers. Adding an infobox to the The Rite of Spring would make it a significantly more useful article for someone like me who knows nothing about the work. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet on that (the first bit)! The motives for insisting on having infoboxes go well beyond improving the article for WP readers. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You could always try reading the lead. An infobox may tell you one or two facts, but little else besides, whereas the lead will give you a nice précis of the topic. - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat: I would the read lead if what I wanted was a précis of the topic, but I don't. I want a few key facts that tells me at a glance the basics of the topic. If after reading those facts I wanted to know more then I would read the lead and then maybe the article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Such as what? Date written? First performance? Composer? Form of work? All in the first para, which is stacked to the brim in sizzlingly hot and juicy facts, with a very small amount of prose which not only holds it all together, but provides further rich and mouth-watering facts (such as Stravinsky being Russian, what the title is in French and Russian, who did choreography and costumes etc - and all in the first three simple sentences. It's as much, if not much more, information than the infobox will show. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Nobody wants to drop the lead. Those who want to read a lead will always have that pleasure. Why not serve the others also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Something of a straw man, I'm afraid Gerda: no-one is talking about getting rid of the lead. Thryduulf mentioned he was after "a few key facts": all those that would be in the infobox are in the first three sentences. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You spoke of the lead as if you would have to miss it when an infobox is there. The box is additional, for people with other needs. - For The Rite, the key facts are in the lead, but don't think Beethoven's place of death is in that lead. Before getting in the endless composer bios' debate, lets attend The Rite of Spring below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Without wishing to get into another tediously circular infobox conversation, "people with other needs". If the "need" is to find a few key facts, as Thryduulf mentioned, then the first three sentences of the lead provide those key facts that would appear in an infobox. If you want a supply of metadata, then a hidden template will suffice for the needs of our supposed "partners". - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we call it "other interests" then? See below, I have an interest to first see highlighted title, subtitle, composer, - not a picture with a caption that links to people other than the composer. Here, I have an interest in seeing at a glance that we dealing with a German-language opera from the 19th century. Try to imagine a reader to whom Wagner's picture means nothing, who may assume the article is about a person. It has been described that collapsed parts are not found. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have already said a few times now, for The Rite of Spring, all those facts are in the first three sentences. Funnily enough, ditto for Das Liebesverbot too. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod: Where is the evidence that backs up that accusation? From everything I've read on this topic the motives of the people wanting to add infoboxes to articles are either (1) to improve articles for readers or (2) to improve articles for readers and improve the metadata for reusers. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please continue at the opera's talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Deadline

Didn't the workshop close over 13 hours ago? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, according to the timescale. The clarks or arbs should either revert back to the state it was when it closed or explicitly allow responses to the posts made since then. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't followed a great many Arb cases; still I don't think it is unusual for the committee to allow some measure of latitude for participants to finish up their closing comments and suggestions. I only recall the "civility" case as actually having pages and discussions formally "closed". Over the last month the Arbs have been presented with much text and links to even more text. My guess would be that they, or at least the drafting Arbs, have already begun to formulate possible PD points to be voted on. Just a guess. — Ched :  ?  15:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Many of us took the deadline seriously and as you can see from my talkpage I was intending to take a Wikibreak as from yesterday. It is highly unreasonable to extend the deadlines when we have all had more than enough time and opportuity to make our points and respond to those of others if we wished to. I for one don't want to have to hang on to an undefined point checking up if there is anything which relates to the issues which have caused me concern, or to any further personal attacks or allegations - and I therefore underline the point made by Pigsonthewing and support the proposal of Thyduulf, preferably to revert back to the close time.--Smerus (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Another vote for putting the Workshop out of its misery. --Folantin (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I respect the deadline and don't add there anymore, although some recent comments made me want to, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. I must admit I wasn't clock watching and I've posted a couple of responses after the deadline. I have no objection to them being removed and I won't make any further posts to the page now that I've been reminded. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Rite of Spring

Someone must have read my mind, I thought not only of The Ban on Love but also of The Rite of Spring. As above, please try not to discuss parameters and their content, simply picture vs. infobox. Feel free to move from the above and the former discussion.

The picture (File:NikolaiRoerichRite1.jpg) is not free, please see the article. Caption: "Part of Nicholas Roerich's designs for Diaghilev's 1913 production of Le Sacre du printemps"

Present version with an image

Merits:

1. It's a beautiful picture.

Flaws:

1. It makes the reader think that the article subject is a painting.
2. The caption does not tell the reader - who will look there first, at least I would - that it is a ballet, but a lot of details not of prime importance. Gerda Arendt (talk)

Title box

The Rite of Spring
Pictures of Pagan Russia in Two Parts
by Igor Stravinsky
Part of Nicholas Roerich's designs for Diaghilev's 1913 (1913) first production of the ballet Le Sacre du printemps in Paris

New idea, to give the reader the information on top that it is not a painting but a ballet by Stravinsky. (The image is a placeholder, because the real one is not free.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

The Rite of Spring
Pictures of Pagan Russia in Two Parts
by Igor Stravinsky
Dancers in a choreography by Pina Bausch, 2009
Native name	Russian: Vesna svyashchennaya French: Le Sacre du printemps
Genre	Ballet
Composed	1910 (1910) – 1913 (1913): Paris, Ustilug and Clarens
Movements	13 "Episodes" in two parts
Scoring	Large orchestra
Premiere
Date	29 May 1913 (1913-05-29)
Location	Théâtre des Champs-Élysées
Conductor	Pierre Monteux
Performers	Ballets Russes

Merits:

1. It highlights what the article is about, in this case English title, subtitle and composer, similar to the title page of a book.
2. It provides key facts in structured form, such as time and location, at a glance and in granular form.
3. It shows a performance, not a set design.
4. It emits metadata.
5. The pic caption in the example shows that the piece was performed in the 21st century, added information. Gerda Arendt (talk)

Flaws:

Discussion of merits and flaws

Infobox merits

1) It highlights what the article is about, in this case English title, subtitle and composer, similar to the title page of a book. (GA)

• As does the first line of the lead - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In the lead it's not like a book cover. I want to browse articles like books in a shelf, not read all first chapters. (GA)

2) It provides key facts in structured form, such as time and location, at a glance and in granular form. (GA)

• As does the lead (although in easily readable form, rather than "granular"). - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

3) It shows a performance, not a set design. (GA)

• This is about the selection of image, nothing to do with the infobox - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

4) It emits metadata. (GA)

• So would a hidden template - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I like things open. (GA)

5) The pic caption in the example shows that the piece was performed in the 21st century, added information. Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Showing a scene from what could be A Chorus Line is not helpful. The lead also has "added information", indeed far more than the infobox. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

(Um, why that one? again? How does one tell from which ballet/play/film any image of the cast taking a bow has been taken? Maybe it's from a different film. But it's not. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)) p.s. although I thought choice of image was meant to be a red herring?

Because there is nothing unique in seeing a line-up of seven people. How does that exemplify the RoS? It doesn't: it doesn't add anything to the article - it distracts utterly. If anyone looks at that, they'll spend more time wondering why that picture has been chosen than anything else. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In case we get real, would suggest the pic from the first performance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

So an image from a real performance, four years ago, by a notable choreographer, "distracts utterly"?! I'm really not sure how to respond to that. As performance images go, I'd agree it's not the best. But I guess it's the best available. If the article was entitled "First performance of the Rite of Spring", then you would be right. But it's not. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it illustrates "Pagan" quite well. In the DYK review for Opernhaus Wuppertal I was asked: is it really soil, not dirt? It's soil ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Flaws:

Consensus:

I think these examples are enough for here. If you want to comment on another of the more than 50 listed cases of infobox debate, feel free to do it on the article's talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Aren't they just taking their bow, not exactly "in a choreography"? Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Could be, I don't know. Even likely, that's when pictures can be taken. What do you suggest, just change it, this is Wikipedia, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Still quite a lot more obviously relevant to a ballet, I'd say. Yes, it could be any ballet. And, yes, the set design is quite unique. But I still think this would be a stronger lead image for the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought about it once more: the facial expression is not exactly what you normally see when dancers take a bow. - Needless to say: the image could also be the set design, it would not be mistaken with the title and composer on top. It could also be the scene from the first performance, as suggested in May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The first image shows a common problem: beautiful as it is, with that caption the picture is being used primarily for its decorative value. It makes no point and doesn't "earn" it's 28 kB of download. That caption is the sort of thing that might form a basis for alt text, as all it does is describe the image. It wouldn't be difficult to do some explaining and make a point with it though. How about "Sergei Diaghilev, founder of the Ballets Russes, commissioned the ballet Sacre du printemps from Stravinsky. The 1913 opening productions featured costumes and set designs by Nicholas Roerich."? --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the choice of image absolutely nothing to do with the infobox? I'm really not sure of the connection. An image can appear on its own (as it does for the RoS), or within an infobox (as it does in the example here). Neither image shows any benefits to either the inclusion of a box or not, it's simply the choice of an image, which is an entirely separate issue... I'd also add that this image (:File:Le Sacre du Printemps (Pina Bausch Tanztheater, Wuppertal).jpg) does little to explain anything about the RoS (it looks like it's been taken from A Chorus Line. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about that. I think some large images make Infoboxes look bloated. I also thought the link to a living choreographer was quite appropriate there. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Any pic and any size here doesn't matter, they are just examples, - the Wuppertal one chosen to catch attention, I admit ;) - Picture vs. Infobox, that is the question. Which picture and which size are questions for the talk page, where various sizes are on display already. - I invite you to add to the merits and flaws of the two options. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As with the issue of the infobox itself, dumbing down arguments to fit bullet points it not always helpful. I would prefer to keep my arguments as prose thanks - the nuances and subtleties are a much better reflection of what I have to say than a few potentially misleading words. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

If you find nuances and subtleties in any of my comments, please let me know. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The bullets above are not comparable to an infobox which is limited in size and has parameters that sometimes can be changed only on request. (The can be changed. If you don't like something in an infobox, go and ask for it to be changed.). You don't have to add above, but you could provide your subtle or simple ideas in as long prose as you wish, if it fits "merits" or "flaws". - I believe that if enough people do that, we might get a picture that may differ from the proclaimed "overwhelming vote 'against' an infobox" in the May discussion. Or not. I would like to find out. (You may remember that I didn't "vote" then, because I believe it should be merits that count.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I signed my bullets. You added to mine. Would you please put your additions, also signed, somewhere else? Or make otherwise visible what is from you? - Also: you misunderstood me. By "highlighted", I mean visible at a glance. Stravinsky stands out on top of the image. He should not be bold in the lead, what would be an equivalent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Separated and signed, although you may wish to change from a numbering system to bullet points for clarity. I'm going to move on from this. I find discussing infoboxes to be a soul-destroying circular task with you unlikely to persuade me and visa versa, and having spent too long discussing the damned things over the last week or so I wish to get on with things I find enjoyable and constructive. Endlessly going over the same ground is neither. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I wish you had placed them as merits of the pictured version, but fine. Sorry for causing you stress, I still try to understand, but understand also if you had enough. The lead is fine for someone who knows already that he wants to read a given article. What about someone who gets there by a search, by chance, and has no idea what The Rite of Spring is about? I am willing to help that one also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Deadline redux

As noted by Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) and supported by inter alia Smerus and Folantin, the deadline has passed. I've been bold and reverted to a state that removes the extraneous material and discussions added after the time limits as they should not be taken into any account. Everyone deserves and needs a break. Scarabocchio (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and if anyone is desperate to post on this talk page and they mention another editor, could they post the name in the format "User:Example" as Scarabocchio has done above so we automatically get a "notification". I for one want to keep this page off my watchlist if possible. Cheers.--Folantin (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have restored this talk page; the discussion of the deadline applies to the Workshop (which you did not revert), not here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it should have been the main Workshop page. I thought he'd reverted there not here. --Folantin (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realise that the deadline had passed: I have struck though my single comment added after the final whistle. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd strike mine if I thought it would make any difference. Or maybe not. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As you have not added anything after the deadline (or to the page at all), I'm not sure what your point is? - SchroCat (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not clear enough that the page is closed, the talk is open? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you all for trying to keep to the deadline. I can confirm this talk page is still open, but the main page should be considered shut. David and I are working on drafting up the proposed decision. Worm^TT(talk) 08:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add a note to that effect, and clear it out as you see fit? I note that people are still posting there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom needs to rethink its processes. It is bad practice to have an editable page that you should not edit. I was going to elaborate, but that says it all.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, adding that this mere formality - and the later entries could easily be ignored - is one of the minor problems where rethinking seems desirable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed also. it doesn't need anything more than an update to the page template and/or an edit notice that says in bold letters that the workshop is closed. This would still allow people to make any minor corrections they absolutely need to. I suppose it could even be automated - the template at the top of WP:ITN/C knows how long ago ITN was updated so it must be possible to set a template to change state at a given time. It might be better to take this discussion to a more central location as it's wider than just this one case. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

But on a page like that few people start at the top or add to the bottom once it has got so long. It's not a major issue - they may yet revert to the deadline date. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm yes that would be a problem for just a template on the page, but an edit notice would be fine in that regard. Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and given the fact that David Fuchs and WTT are working on the proposed decision which will be posted by now or tomorrow (August 14 is when the PD should be posted), I hope some of the proposed decisions make it there, but some may be rejected. As an uninvolved user participating in this case, I helped provide evidence about what led to this case since I am a member of the Classical Music, Composers and Opera projects and I think that the Arbs will come up with a positive resolution as I personally feel that the infobox disputes have gone on long enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)