Talk:Joe Romm/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Infobox

This article does not need an infobox, and the infobox that has recently been inserted by an editor is entirely redundant. See WP:INFOBOX. The use of infoboxes in WP articles is optional. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles, as here, do not. Here are some reasons why I disagree with including an infobox in this article: (1) The box does not emphasize the most important information, as the narrative WP:LEAD section does so well. Instead, it presents disconnected facts stripped of context and lacking nuance. (2) The most important points about the article that could be mentioned in the infobox are already discussed in the Lead, so the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and includes some less important factoids that are better discussed in the body of the article below. (4) It hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (5) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, and they tend to draw vandalism (6) Starting the article with the infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the article that discourages new editors from editing the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Include infobox - In my opinion a infobox contributes to expression of notability (that is, when you have a good photo). Because the article is quiet big, it is an easy way to find his homepage link and key infos. Info inside of the infobox can be extended too. Or look at similar articles, all have infobox, why not his, just this blurry photo, bad. However, i do not have strong feelings about this, but overall suggest inclusion - as outlined the article would benefit from it. Cheers prokaryotes (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• The article is improved by the deletion of the Info-Box. IBs have a useful role where career statistics etc should be immediately to to hand, but here it was wasted space to have "Alma mater" etc in a special box. Really rather pointless, and I think think Wikipedia should always strive to stick to the point. Tim riley talk 15:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional information i.e. An infobox may be used to improve the appearance of an article on Wikipedia; They are used on similar articles to ensure consistency of presentation by using a common format. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infobox prokaryotes (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• A horribly POV quote from our own article is no basis for inclusion. A vehicle to carry redundant information that is present in the lead isn't needed, as is fairly clear in the considerable number of excellent articles that exist without them. Strong oppose to the inclusion of an IB here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That, I think, is the point. Prokaryotes asserts, or seems to, that an Info-Box is ipso facto a good thing. It isn't. Sometimes it is helpful to the reader and sometimes (as here) it is a repetitive waste of space, making WP look amateurish. Tim riley talk 19:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to make something clear about inclusion of IB in this article, and to sum my argument up. The editor reverted the inclusion of IB 20 minutes after addition, info can be extended (which possibly would avoid DISINFOBOX then). Given the length of the lede, the IB would help with overview for interested readers. I note that this is my first time that i come across editors who do not like IB's. Unless there are editors who want to include IB here i leave it as it is. prokaryotes (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Argument that its wasted space due to redundancy is inconsistent with the general attitude towards tables and graphics, both of which are encouraged if they present the article material in an alternative easy to digest format. IB's strke me as part graphic and part table and are not wasted space just because they repeat article text. On the other hand, they are not ispo facto appropriate just because an article is of a particular sort. Instead, there needs to be enough meaningful material to make the attitudes behind our table and graphics rules come into play. Whether that's true here is debatable, and I'm explicitly expressing no opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If I may say so, the flexible and responsive approach by both Prokaryotes and NewsAndEventsGuy, above, is refreshing. O si sic omnes! Tim riley talk 20:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support infobox in this article. Looking at its last iteration with infobox, however, the infobox need brith date and age, and it also needs his alma mater spelled out (not abbreviated) and wikilinked, and his degree should come after that, not before, probably in parentheses. Also, since climate-change writings ar wht he is known for, that should probably be indicated in the infobox, probably under "Known for" parameter. Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox as not necessary as it doesn't contain any information not covered in the lead. Jack1956 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox -- Waste of space, uninformative, ugly, repetitive, and redundant are just five reasons as to why this article should not have an infobox. Softlavender, all of what you recommend can be found within the first few lines of the lead section. What would be the benefit of repeating this? Cassianto^Talk 20:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the box as there is no consensus here to add one. Softlavender, the discussion is ongoing: do not try and force something in that you want if it is contentious and under an ongoing discussion: wait to see if the consensus develops to add the box. Until then the status quo ante - ie. the non-boxed version - remans in place, as per every guideline I've seen on wiki about disputed additions. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support infobox The biographical information on Romm is lengthy and detailed to the point where an "at a glance" introduction is of use. Without it, the article can be seen as a long navigational process that many just looking for quick information on the subject would not bother to read. An overwhelming majority of bios of this length include infoboxes -- what makes this one any different? --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• And a great many longer, more detailed bios (up to and including FA-graded material don't have infoboxes, so it's something of a strawman arguement. – SchroCat (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Just because an article does not have them doesn't mean it bears arguing none of them should. This is about the maximum convenience of the reader. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Just because an article does have them doesn't mean it bears arguing this one should. The reader isn't inconvenienced by reading the opening three lines of the lead which presents the information in a far batter way than just stripping factoids out of context and dumbing down. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• So if an infobox is "dumbing down" the content of the article, are you arguing for the removal of all infoboxes?--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Only those that do not increase knowledge. It doesn't here. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• A majority of the infoboxes I have seen/edited recently on various articles include information that is in the lead, and of comparable total article length, but there has been no objection or debate over their inclusion. This article is no different and does not, in my opinion, dumb down the knowledge of the article. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• You have your opinon. That of others obviously differs. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have still seen no argument here for removal that seems to be expressed as consensus anywhere else on Wikipedia. It seems to be an isolated feeling that has no bearing in precedent -- if there's no good reason to remove it, then why do it? --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• You have this the wrong way round. The article has been stable WITHOUT an idiobox in place. There have been no good reasons provided for the inclusion of one. Your opinion has been noted, but repeating it hasn't changed the consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• I am arguing the exact opposite of what you're arguing -- I felt that the opposition side has the same point reiterated over and over again that I rebutted and never felt was adequately responded to. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• You still have not provided sufficient reason to add the IB, and the consensus is against you. I think this dead horse is now well and truly flogged. - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• I admit that the consensus favors removal -- I'm just expressing that I haven't heard more than one repetitive reason argued the whole time, and often with little explanation.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• No... the consensus doesn't favour removal: there is and was nothing to remove. The consensus favour retaining the status quo ante of not adding the IB. - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oh... forgive me, I had the historical leadup here a bit wrong -- I thought there had always been an infobox and some people had just decided to remove it out of the blue. I should learn to read :) --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• All the key information is in the 3-paragraph LEAD section. The proposed infobox simply repeats information given in better context in those three paragraphs, except that it contains some relatively unimportant information, like the name of his home town and schools, which does not belong in the Lead section and is handled adequately in the body of the article below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)