| Revision as of 06:23, 24 February 2019 editMarkH21 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,594 edits →Template:Infobox mathematical statement: link pipe← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:49, 24 February 2019 edit undoPurgy Purgatorio (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,967 edits →Template:Infobox mathematical statement: stricken for wrongly gathering my involvement, I oppose THIS infobox ( and others, but not all)! I do not prejudice the other mentioned editorsNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| Per ], it would seem that there was a rough consensus not to use this. However, I just noticed that it has been added to a number of articles. I'm still of the view that this is a useless infobox and is an overall negative to articles that use it. –] (] • ]) 05:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | Per ], it would seem that there was a rough consensus not to use this. However, I just noticed that it has been added to a number of articles. I'm still of the view that this is a useless infobox and is an overall negative to articles that use it. –] (] • ]) 05:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' (author): Here is I gathered from that discussion at the time. 3 comments ({{ping|David Eppstein}}, {{ping|Purgy Purgatorio}}, and {{ping|Wcherowi}}) are oppositions to infoboxes ''in general'', written in response to my observation that "there is a sparsity of mathematical infoboxes". This seemed to be the case particularly since none of them commented on any aspect of this particular infobox and none of them replied to my responses about this particular infobox. I noted that {{ping|Trovatore}} found the usage plausible and the given example as useful. I took Deacon Vorbis's comment to be a lack of objection to infoboxes in general but as "not sure much is really gained by having this" for this particular infobox because it "seems to be for information that's usually already in the article lead anyway". Therefore, I began by implementing the infobox in articles where the information was not easily seen in the article lead. | *'''Keep''' (author): Here is I gathered from that discussion at the time. <s>3</s> 2 comments ({{ping|David Eppstein}}, <s>{{ping|Purgy Purgatorio}},</s> and {{ping|Wcherowi}}) are oppositions to infoboxes ''in general'', written in response to my observation that "there is a sparsity of mathematical infoboxes". This seemed to be the case particularly since none of them commented on any aspect of this particular infobox and none of them replied to my responses about this particular infobox. I noted that {{ping|Trovatore}} found the usage plausible and the given example as useful. I took Deacon Vorbis's comment to be a lack of objection to infoboxes in general but as "not sure much is really gained by having this" for this particular infobox because it "seems to be for information that's usually already in the article lead anyway". Therefore, I began by implementing the infobox in articles where the information was not easily seen in the article lead. | ||
| :Some reasons for why the infobox adds value to some articles: | :Some reasons for why the infobox adds value to some articles: | ||
Revision as of 08:49, 24 February 2019
| < February 23 | February 25 > |
|---|
February 24
Template:Infobox mathematical statement
Per this discussion, it would seem that there was a rough consensus not to use this. However, I just noticed that it has been added to a number of articles. I'm still of the view that this is a useless infobox and is an overall negative to articles that use it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep (author): Here is I gathered from that discussion at the time.
32 comments (@David Eppstein:,@Purgy Purgatorio:,and @Wcherowi:) are oppositions to infoboxes in general, written in response to my observation that "there is a sparsity of mathematical infoboxes". This seemed to be the case particularly since none of them commented on any aspect of this particular infobox and none of them replied to my responses about this particular infobox. I noted that @Trovatore: found the usage plausible and the given example as useful. I took Deacon Vorbis's comment to be a lack of objection to infoboxes in general but as "not sure much is really gained by having this" for this particular infobox because it "seems to be for information that's usually already in the article lead anyway". Therefore, I began by implementing the infobox in articles where the information was not easily seen in the article lead.
- Some reasons for why the infobox adds value to some articles:
- Particularly with regards to logical connections (implications, generalizations, etc.), this infobox contains information that is not usually in article leads that adds accessibility and connectedness across mathematics articles of this type.
- Depending on the length of the relevant material, the infobox information should not always be in an article lead.
- Even if one believes all of this information should be contained in the lead, it usually is not and can be buried under "History" or "Current status" for a level-4 vital article in Mathematics, a good article (generalization of Cauchy's theorem), or even a featured article.
- It improves the readability for non-specialists by neatly packaging bigger-picture information, particularly for lengthy articles (which tend to be the most popular ones).
- These articles are often intimidating for the general reader or even knowledgeable reader who cannot understand the statement of a theorem/conjecture/etc., but presenting the bigger picture information up front helps contextualize the theorem/conjecture/etc.
- The expert reader who "is curious about Misplaced Pages's coverage" immediately sees the articles on logically-relevant topics.
- It does not take up substantial space (particularly when there already exists an image and caption in the top-right corner or when there is a long TOC).
- Readers can choose to ignore the infobox.
- Its usage is an extension of Template:unsolved which is already used in 247 articles. The reasons for inclusion of this infobox is at least as strong as those for that template.
- Perhaps there are improvements that can be made, but I firmly believe that there is value in the (even partial) implementation of this infobox to make mathematical articles better-connected (as math is much more connected than math articles on Misplaced Pages suggest) and more accessible. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:Kamil Bednarek
- Template:Kamil Bednarek (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This singer's navigational template consists of four links and none that are albums or singles. The singer's article is the only article where the template is in use and the other three links are a band they were a member, a redirect back to the singer's article and a reality show they were on. This clearly fails WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)