User:Tazerdadog/sandbox

2018 Infobox RFC

Background

Infoboxes have been a heated topic on Wikipedia for at least a decade [1], and have included at least two arbcom cases. The most recent is likely to close with the following remedy:

Community discussion recommended

The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article.

This is intended to be that discussion. Currently, the policy at WP:INFOBOX provides the following guidance:

The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

In practice, this guidance has proven to be insufficient, and has resulted in a large quantity of very similar discussions taking place at every article where a dispute is present.

The current arbcom case is likey to improve the climate of infobox related discussions significantly, but remand the substantive question of "Which articles should have infoboxes" back to the community. Therefore, we need to decide the following:

What guidance should be provided for infoboxes in stub articles?

• A) The majority of stubs should ideally have an infobox. A compelling reason specific to the stub is needed to deliberately exclude an infobox.

• B) No project-wide guidance is given on infoboxes in stubs. If a discussion on an infobox reaches a "No Consensus" outcome, it should default to including the infobox.

• C) No project-wide guidance is given on infoboxes in stubs. If a discussion on an infobox reaches a "No Consensus" outcome, it should default to excluding the infobox.

• D) The majority of stubs should ideally not have an infobox. A compelling reason specific to the stub is needed to deliberately include an infobox. Editors that are hellbent on including an infobox should first expand the article beyond a stub.

What guidance should be provided for infoboxes in non-stub biographies?

• A) The majority of non-stub biographies should ideally have an infobox. A compelling reason specific to the article is needed to deliberately exclude an infobox.

• B) No project-wide guidance is given on infoboxes in non-stub biographies. If a discussion on an infobox reaches a "No Consensus" outcome, it should default to including the infobox.

• C) No project-wide guidance is given on infoboxes in non-stub biographies. If a discussion on an infobox reaches a "No Consensus" outcome, it should default to excluding the infobox.

• D) The majority of non-stub biographies should ideally not have an infobox. A compelling reason specific to the article is needed to deliberately include an infobox.

What guidance should be provided for infoboxes in non-stub articles on a species or subspecies?

• A) The majority of non-stub articles on a species or subspecies should ideally have an infobox. A compelling reason specific to the article is needed to deliberately exclude an infobox.

• B) No project-wide guidance is given on infoboxes in non-stub articles on a species or subspecies. If a discussion on an infobox reaches a "No Consensus" outcome, it should default to including the infobox.

• C) No project-wide guidance is given on infoboxes in non-stub articles on a species or subspecies. If a discussion on an infobox reaches a "No Consensus" outcome, it should default to excluding the infobox.

• D) The majority of non-stub articles on a species or subspecies should ideally not have an infobox. A compelling reason specific to the article is needed to deliberately include an infobox.

What guidance should be provided for infoboxes in articles on a chemical substance

• A) The majority of non-stub articles on a chemical substance should ideally have an infobox. A compelling reason specific to the article is needed to deliberately exclude an infobox.

• B) No project-wide guidance is given on infoboxes in non-stub articles on a chemical substance. If a discussion on an infobox reaches a "No Consensus" outcome, it should default to including the infobox.

• C) No project-wide guidance is given on infoboxes in non-stub articles on a chemical substance. If a discussion on an infobox reaches a "No Consensus" outcome, it should default to excluding the infobox.

• D) The majority of non-stub articles on a chemical substance should ideally not have an infobox. A compelling reason specific to the article is needed to deliberately include an infobox.

What guidance should be provided for infoboxes in articles not explicitly addressed above

• A) The majority of other articles should ideally have an infobox. A compelling reason specific to the article is needed to deliberately exclude an infobox.

• B) No project-wide guidance is given on infoboxes in other articles. If a discussion on an infobox reaches a "No Consensus" outcome, it should default to including the infobox.

• C) No project-wide guidance is given on infoboxes in other articles. If a discussion on an infobox reaches a "No Consensus" outcome, it should default to excluding the infobox.

• D) The majority of other articles should ideally not have an infobox. A compelling reason specific to the article is needed to deliberately include an infobox.

Article level templates

After a discussion concludes regarding infoboxes at an article, should a template, providing a link to the most recent discussion, and a summary of the result be placed at the top of that article?

Discussion Moratoriums

After a discussion on infoboxes in an article concludes, should there be a mandatory waiting period before reopening the same discussion at the same article. If the answer to this question is yes, a follow-up RFC will determine an appropriate duration.